Mark ends at Mark 16:8

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Darron Steele, Mar 20, 2007.

  1. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Everyone.

    As a non-Baptist, I cannot create a thread such as this in the Bible Translations and Versions area. If I understand correctly, I can create such a thread here, so I have.

    Recently, we have been going back and forth over `salvation by completed baptism.' Those who advance this teaching are repeatedly going to the first part of "Mark 16:16." Of course, the second part of "Mark 16:16" is not favorable to that teaching. Nonetheless, I believe it is not appropriate to treat as Scripture what is not Scripture.

    First of all, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts come to us from after the year 1000, and the New Testament was finished before the year 100.

    The two oldest manuscripts that have an ending of Mark and the start of another book are Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus from the mid-300's. Neither manuscript has any text after Mark 16:8 before starting the next book.

    Codex Vaticanus leaves room for additional material in case someone else wanted to add it, but evidently, the older manuscript the scribe was copying did not have anything beyond Mark 16:8.

    In addition to this very telling evidence, a manuscript of the 700's, Codex Regius, symbol L, has a shorter alternative ending in place of the traditional embellishment.

    The oldest Latin manuscript, which is manuscript k of the pre-Vulgate Old Latin Version, also has that same shorter alternative ending. This particular manuscript dates to c.399-400.

    Turning to the manuscripts of ancient translations, we get some information. Text after Mark 16:8 is nonexistent in one of the two Old Syriac translations = Sinaitic Syriac. It is absent in some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic translation. It is absent in some of the Ethiopic manuscripts, and some of the Armenian translation's manuscripts.

    The shorter alternative ending appears in the Old Latin, in the Ethiopic, the Syriac, and both translations into Coptic. Anytime the shorter alternative ending appears with the traditional embellishment, I believe it indicates the producer considered them equally credible endings -- and doubted both.

    Manuscripts as late as the sixteenth century = 1500's place marks on the embellishment.

    Jerome and Eusebius from the 300's report that the majority of manuscripts of their time lacked the traditional embellishment.

    There are Christian writings before the year 140 beyond Scripture. I found that when they have references to the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ, the details are exclusively from Matthew, Luke, or John.

    Testimony from throughout the manuscript period and all over the Christian world testify against the authenticity of that forgery. The only reason most modern translations include it is because it is historically significant.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sources:
    Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text Of The New Testament. Translated by Erroll H. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmanns, 1982.

    MacArthur, John (author and ed.). The MacArthur Study Bible (New King James Version). Nashville: Nelson/Word Publishing, 1997.

    Mann, C. S.. The Anchor Bible: Mark. New York: Doubleday, 1986.

    Major, H. D. A., T. W. Manson, and C. J. Wright. The Mission And Message Of Jesus. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1938.

    Trinitarian Bible Society. The Authenticity Of the Last Twelve Verses Of The Gospel According To Mark. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, undated.

    White, James R.. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.
     
    #1 Darron Steele, Mar 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2007
  2. His Blood Spoke My Name

    His Blood Spoke My Name
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark ends at 16:8 only for those who doubt the full counsel of God.
     
  3. DQuixote

    DQuixote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. His Blood Spoke My Name

    His Blood Spoke My Name
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the devil can convince so many that Mark ended with the disciple's in fear and the Lord still in the grave, I wonder how long before he tries to take the resurrection account out of the other Gospels?

    The Sadducee's did not believe in the resurrection. The devil is trying to deceive many to believe it never happened.

    Sorry folks. Mark goes well past 16:8. Our Lord is risen indeed!
     
  6. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, our Lord is indeed risen. You will find the information about it in the other three gospels, in Acts, and in the New Testament epistles.
     
    #6 Darron Steele, Mar 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2007
  7. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Boy, all those "this is not in the original bible" debates are so annoying.
    People simply don't get it that once you start taking only 1 verse out the whole bible is at jeopardy. It's either all or nothing!
     
  8. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    So if someone tries to add a verse, it has to stay?

    I say `no,' whether the presumptuous person is alive now, or was someone from around the year 100.
     
    #8 Darron Steele, Mar 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2007
  9. His Blood Spoke My Name

    His Blood Spoke My Name
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    0
    To leave verses following verse 8 is to leave Christ in the tomb, and the disciples in fear.

    Better open your eyes folks. Before the devil has you believing the resurrection never took place and has you removing the resurrection account in the other three Gospels as well... and from any subsequent books.

    We already have idiots making new bibles claiming Christ was not born of a virgin, but of a gorilla. How many that remove the resurrection account from Mark will fall for that lie too?
     
  10. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not at all. Jesus' Resurrection is well-attested in the other Gospels, Acts, and the epistles of the New Testament -- and very explicitly in Mark 16:6.

    You are letting your emotions cloud your reading.

    To remove the forged text after Mark 16:8 is to stop attributing to God the words of a presumptuous scribe.
     
  11. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think this dog can hunt in re: baptismal regeneration. What most scholars conclude is that the Gospel of Mark was likely written in codex form, and the last page fell off at some very early date.

    It is as possible that the later addition was taken from a complete
    copy of the autograph as it is that someone made it up.

    In any case, there are plentiful Scriptural references to baptism. One really shouldn't need to build an entire theological position from the end of one Gospel.
     
  12. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    That's correct. If Mark ends at 16:8, it ends on a very negative note, and it would be the only gospel without a resurrection account.

    The events in Mark 16:9-18 are supported by Matthew chapter 28, and Luke 24.

    Events in Mark 16, verse 19 & 20 are supported by Luke 24, & Acts 1.

    John 3;18 should answer any questions Mark 16:16 inspire.
     
  13. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark 16:1-7 is very clear about Jesus' Resurrection. All four gospels report the Resurrection.

    Also, if a commentary agreed with Scripture passages, would that make it Scripture? No. The fact that some parts of the forged material after 16:8 agrees with genuine Scripture does not make it Scripture.

    However, I advocate sticking with the evidence, rather than theological or philosophical considerations.
     
    #13 Darron Steele, Mar 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2007
  14. His Blood Spoke My Name

    His Blood Spoke My Name
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try sticking with the Word of God of which Mark 16:9-20 are included.

    Just because your commentaries state that these verses are forged does not make it so.

    Scripture must interpret Scripture. And as Brother Curtis has pointed out, other Gospels agree with the verses you question, so I will have to agree with the Word of God that these verses are there because He inspired the author of the Gospel of Mark to include them in the originals.
     
    #14 His Blood Spoke My Name, Mar 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2007
  15. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    There is no resurrection account, there is someone there telling them Jesus is gone. If Mark ends there, it ends without Christ appearing, in the flesh.

    I would advocate comparing scripture agaisnst scripture. Mark 16 9-20 has not been proven to be a forgery.
     
  16. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark 16:6 "ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here" (ASV).

    Your emotions are clouding your reading of the text. You just denied a genuine Scripture account of the Resurrection, something I am sure you would not knowingly do.
    Correct, the ancient evidence demonstrates that this is so.
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=38549
     
    #16 Darron Steele, Mar 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2007
  17. His Blood Spoke My Name

    His Blood Spoke My Name
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ancient manuscripts does not necessarily mean ancient evidence.

    Some ancient manuscripts claim that Christ returned and the Millenial Kingdom began in 70 A.D., but that is not true either.

    Fact is, some idiot removed Mark 16:9-20 from some manuscripts long ago and more idiots bought the lie that it did not belong there in the first place. And so the lie has been passed down from generation to generation.
     
  18. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    For me, an appearance is necessary to complete the resurrection story.

    I did no such thing. I read it, reread it, and Christ does not appear in those verses.
     
  19. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am unaware of any copy of the New Testament from before the year 500 that says Jesus Christ returned in the year 70. Documentation, please?

    I am aware of ancient copies of the New Testament that indicate that the manuscripts they copied did not have any text for Mark after 16:8. I am aware of ancient translations that translated manuscripts that did not have any text for Mark after 16:8.

    See the opening post for documented evidence.
     
  20. His Blood Spoke My Name

    His Blood Spoke My Name
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where some idiotic texts would have it end, the two women are in fear, they do not believe Christ has risen because they do not go back to tell the disciples as they were told to do. Instead, they run off cowering and afraid.

    If the story ends there, there is nothing but fear and suspicion that the Lord's body had only been stolen as the soldiers had been paid to say.

    No, the verses continue with the account of the Lord appearing to people and talking with them.

    The verses are not forgery, but proof of the resurrection written by the original author and inspired by the Holy Ghost.
     

Share This Page

Loading...