The Ending of Mark

Ain't we all sure little Harrington has no 'doubts in his mind' about picking up snakes (or is it "serpents"?)? I'll catch you a few rattlers for $5 a head to help you carry out your KJV. Deal? </font>[/QUOTE]If you are going to insult me at least spell my name correctly. This should not be too difficult if you would just take time to look at my user name.

BTW, you could probably spend this time more effectively if you used it to learn how to speak the English language. Judging by your posting, you need all the help you can get. For instance, using "ain't" is not considered proper. Also, you use single quotes in one place and double quotes in another place in the same sentence. Not to mention the question mark should be inside of the quotation marks. There is also no reason to use the parentheses in your first sentence.

If you spent as much time trying to write correctly as you do in an attempt at humor, perhaps your point would be taken more seriously.

BTW, how is a rattler going to help me carry my KJV? You probably meant to say, "I'll catch you a few rattlers for five dollars a head to help you carry out your interpretation of the KJV verses that you quoted."

 

Oh, my goodness, Lighten up Mr. H-E-r-r-i-n-g-t-o-n, his whole sentence was written to be humorous; even the "ain't".

The best writers I know use poor punctuation and grammar on chat boards.


If you would spend more time trying to answer the questions, instead of trying to be critical all of the time, we might get something debated properly.

Ain't that 1611 a great translation, but somebody corrected it and left in the end of Mark and erased the apocrypha. I guess when they tested it, the poison caused a burning in the bossom and the apocrypha didn't. hee hee

 

I will try, Mr. Correctly.

Would I get paid by the hour for doing that?

I ain't took English since college, but I thank I talk it real good.

Hold it, brother. "Judge not lest ye be judged."

If any of this help wants more than minimum wage, tell 'em I'm layin' off now.

There ain't no prop for it to be proper than.

I know. Ain't I clever?

Not to mention such a horror as a sentence fragment either.

Ain't you never heard of a paranthetical expression?

Oh, I was afraid of that!

Remove his fangs and they might make a good 2-finger handle.

Does this mean we have a contract?

 

...and I thought my response was good. I'm rolling on the floor now. Cain't get up neither. . . Uh oh, double negative....

 

I noticed most modern versions reflecting to Mark 16:9-20 said their footnotes show that MSS did not have these verses. However these modern versions did not tell you WHAT manuscripts did not contain these verses. Why did they refuse to name *WHAT* manuscripts?

 

I don't think "refused" is the right word, I'm not sure that anybody asked them to list the manuscripts in the first place.

It doesn't matter, like Dr. Bob said, there are not many manuscripts that are the same, even if they DO have an ending.

This has even been the subject of books that the ending was really a part of one of the other gospels, particularly that of John. I am not subscribing to that theory, just making it a point that what Dr. Bob said is well known among scholars who study ancient manuscripts.

 

So do you suggest that he use MLA, APA or Turabian form to document his references?

 

Just look it up. Does your KJV cite all the textual variants? Why don't they cite the textual variants? Must be bad if they don't do that.

 

gb, no his KJV doesn't cite all the textual variants. This is askjo's way of trying to deflect the debate back away from his position needing to be defended.

 

Why does misinformation and inaccuracy rage? Can no one get the facts straight on the evidence regarding the ending of Mark? It would be a simple matter merely to consult the various monographs that have been written (Burgon, Farmer), or to consult a comprehensive critical apparatus or especially the Text und Textwert series that cites the status of *all* NT Greek MSS vis-a-vis their type of the long ending. Instead, we get inaccuracies such as the following:

gb: "The funny thing is that none of the oldest manuscripts contain that passage.

True if by "none of the oldest" one means *two* and two only (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; the 12th century MS 304 is certainly *not* one of the "oldest" MSS). And even then "oldest" is not statistically relevant, since (as I posted in another thread), the earliest Greek MSS *containing* the long ending of Mark date from the early 5th century (MSS A and C), while the earliest Greek MSS that *omit* the long ending of Mark (Aleph and B) date from the mid-4th century -- basically a mere a 50-75 year difference.

I won't even get into the matter of B leaving a column and a half blank space after 16:8, which even Metzger admits was done because the scribe either knew of the long ending or had it before him in his exemplar and either chose not to include it or was instructed not to include it.

Nor also the fact that the leaves in question in Sinaiticus (Aleph) were replacement leaves for something that had originally been written, but that was removed while the MS was still in the same scriptorium, with the cancel leaves being written by a contemporary scribe.

Philip: "Like Dr. Bob said, there are not many manuscripts that are the same, even if they DO have an ending.

As I also stated, very precisely, there are 1620 MSS (according to the data published by the Nestle-Aland people) that contain and read Mk 16:9-20 unitedly without *any* significant variation beyond spelling differences such as itacism, etc.

Philip: "How can you prove this if most old manuscripts have a)no ending b)different endings, etc.?"

See above. They don't. *Two* old MSS have no ending; six and *only* six MSS contain *both* the long ending and the so-called shorter ending. About another six MSS have asterisks or obeli while containing the long ending *alone* without significant variation; and one MS (W) contains the long ending with (as Dr Bob mentioned) a lengthy addition between verses 14 and 15 (a minor paragraph, compringin only a few sentences). 1620 MSS have the text of the long ending without significant variation.

Dr Bob Redux: "The "long ending" of Mark is not found in major Greek texts Aleph, B and 304."

Correct, although "major" is a relative and qualitative term, and MS 304 of the 12th century does not qualify in that regard.

Dr Bob: "It is not found in Old Syriac."

Wrong. While it does not appear on the Sinaitic Old Syriac MS (a single Old Syriac witness), as I noted previously in another thread, the 2nd century text found in the Curetonian Old Syriac MS (the only other Old Syriac witness) *has* the long ending. So also the entire Old Latin tradition *except* for the single MS k. All these represent a second-century text.

Similarly, the church father Irenaeus in the 2nd century quotes verbatim the opening and closing verses of Mark, with the long ending present, thus confirming the Old Latin and Old Syriac testimony.

Dr Bob: "...not found in ... Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian."

Actually present in the Coptic Boharic version, and in many MSS of the Coptic Sahidic version (to which add MSS of the Ethiopic version as well). Some 100 MSS of the Armenian version omit, but the greater portion include; Colwell provided a complete list in a 1937 JBL article.

Only the "two oldest Georgian manuscripts" omit the passage, while the remainder contain it (these "oldest" Georgian MSS are actually *very* late, being dated AD 897 and AD 913).

Dr Bob: When the "long ending"/variations of it ARE included, many Greek texts have critical marks around these verses (obeli/asterisk) indicating the scribes' questioning its inclusion.

As stated above, these "many Greek texts" (MSS) are about a half dozen, and it is not certain what rhe significance of the obeli actually may be. The interpretation that they are used to mark questionable passages assumes that late Greek scribes of the 8th and 9th century and later were practicing Alexandrian critical procedures known from the first and second century with a 600 year gap in their application among NT MSS. This is highly suspect, else it would have been practiced continuously. It is more likely, given the presence of obeli elsewhere in the Gospel material, that some lectionary signification is intended.

Dr Bob: "A number of ancient texts have only the normal ending in v.9. k, L, psi, 083, 099, 274, 579, 1602.

Incorrect. The Greek MSS listed are those that contain *both* the complete long ending as well as the so-called "shorter ending" beyond v.9. Old Latin MS k is the *only* MS in any language to *omit* the long ending entirely and also to *include* the shorter ending by itself. The Greek MSS listed have both the shorter and longer endings.

Dr Bob: " W adds an entire paragraph between v 14-15."

Correct. But only a *short* paragraph. And W otherwise contains the whole long ending.

Askjo: "I noticed most modern versions reflecting to Mark 16:9-20 said their footnotes show that MSS did not have these verses. However these modern versions did not tell you WHAT manuscripts did not contain these verses. Why did they refuse to name *WHAT* manuscripts?"

There is no conspiracy to conceal data. Translations don't bog down lay readers with technical data. Niether do they tell you the specific 8 Greek MSS of the 11th and later centuries that add 1Jn 5:7 to the textr, even while the remaining 500 Greek MSS *totally omit* that passage. The data are all publicly available, and those who want to know can easily find out.

(Sources for all the above data: UBS4 apparatus, Nestle-Aland27 apparatus, Metzger's Textual Commentary, Text und Textwerrt, Burgon's Last Twelve Verses of Mark, Farmer's Last Twelve Verses of Mark).

 

Hey, Askjo, I'll ask you again, who decided the apocrypha was not scriptural after it was included in the 1611 KJV?

Note to Moderators: This is still on-track because it may point to why Mark's ending is the way it is in the KJV.

 

Actually, since Mark 16:9-20 is in your Bible (and mine), the only thing you (and I) can attest to is that the transtors wanted those verses there. To presume anything more would be to presume the Lord, something we're scripturally forbidden from doing.

 

Strange! The Rice Reference Bible - KJV named what textual variants on Mark 16:9-20.

 

Ziggy,

That was a fine piece of work. Thanks for going beyond the parroted propaganda and studying like a man. I don't know which side of this debate you come down on but we could all use a few more minds like yours. Well done.

Lacy

 

Lacy, what is the debate? Whether or not the ending of Mark is correct, or KJVO vs, non-KJVO?

Yes, Ziggy did a fine piece of work, but he also added not only his own opinions to each piece he added that of the authors of the books he referred to. Notice that he would tell Dr. Bob he was wrong, but then turn around in the answer and admit that at least one of the documents quoted by Dr. Bob didn't have it.

Don't misquote me, there is nothing wrong with opinions, but you must realize that commentary on facts can be used to slant a person in either direction.

Now that you know exactly which manuscripts contain it and which don't (assuming all the information is accurate), then what is the conclusion?

 

Philip: "Notice that he would tell Dr. Bob he was wrong, but then turn around in the answer and admit that at least one of the documents quoted by Dr. Bob didn't have it."

No turnaround at all. Dr Bob's statement was absolute ("It is not found in Old Syriac") and therefore erroneous. All I (correctly) stated was that it is *not* found in one Old Syriac MS, but it *is* found in the only other Old Syriac MS, and thus preserves a clear second-century testimony to the existence in Old Syriac of that passage, just as with the mass of Old Latin MSS providing clear second-century testimony to the presence of that passage, despite its omission in OL MS "k".

Philip: "he also added not only his own opinions to each piece he added that of the authors of the books he referred to."

There's not much "opinion" in that post -- either of myself or the other authors -- it is a factual summary statement of data.

I didn't even have to deal with the issue of whether Aleph and B are the "best" MSS....I only pointed out that, although they are the oldest extant Greek MSS *omitting* that portion of text, they are only 50-75 years earlier than the next oldest (A and C) that *contain* the passage; the point was made that this 50-75 year gap is *not* as "significant" as some of the inaccurate claims, e.g., gb's assertion that the passage was “not found in any manuscripts until if I remember right something like 1100 years later”.

If you find something wrong with the facts as stated, I will be pleased to correct my errors. OTOH, if you want my irrelevant *opinion* regarding the passage (which I have *not* stated), feel free to ask.

(I acknowledge that I did state an opinion that there was no "conspiracy" to withhold statements of textual evidence from English Bible footnotes; to that I plead guilty, and admit arguing from silence, since I did not ask all those publishers whether they were engaged in such a conspiracy. Maybe they were? I don't think so, but that's only my *opinion*).

 

Dr Bob: "Now I KNOW we can "talk through" all of these internal evidences - I'm a Baptist and trained to deal with these very difficult issues. But I've not seen a short passage with so MANY obvious "glitches" as this one."

John A. Broadus presented a defense of the authenticity of these verses in the Baptist Quarterly, 1869, and had no problem accepting the teachings within this passage from his strong Baptistic standpoint.

Dr Bob: “"in another form" would indicate Jesus could change his form at will. The other Gospels are careful to record the opposite - to prove His physical resurrection, not some "ghostly" other form”

I suggest you are trying to read too much into this from the word MORFH. I know you don't think that Jesus "lost" his "form of God" (MORFH QEOU) at the incarnation, even though he took on a new physical MORFH that men could observe. Jesus in his resurrection body did appeared in a “form” which caused some eye-recognition difficulty (Lk 24:16 “but their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know him”; Mt 28:17 “When they saw him, they worshipped him, but some doubted”), not to mention an ability to appear and disappear at will. On the other hand, if you want “ghostly” then look for FANTASMA in the Greek, which is what the apostles thought they saw when Jesus was walking on the water (Mt 14:26; Mk 6:49) -- there in obviously wholly recognizable “form” but wrongly *assumed* to be a ghost.

Dr Bob: “"appeared to eleven"? We know Thomas was missing and Judas dead.”

You’re stretching it there by implying a contradiction and thereby non-inerrancy in order to discredit the passage. You refer to the *one* occasion when ten were present and Thomas was absent. Eight days later the scene in John repeated itself and Thomas was present. Why should Mark (or whoever wrote the long ending) have to refer to the first meeting rather than the second? “Afterward” in Mark could mean either of the two meetings.

Dr Bob: "believeth and is baptized shall be saved"

Obviously not of historical difficulty to Baptists of all prior generations, else we would all be Church of Christ today. Probably more important is the phrase “he who does not believe will be condemned”, where no mention of baptism is present. And "believes and is baptized" just *may* refer not to water baptism (which we Baptists seem to see in every mention of the term), but to the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a *result* of belief and not an instrument thereof.

Dr Bob: “"signs shall follow them that believe" - that does NOT mean just Paul on Malta, it means ME!”

I would suggest faulty exegesis on that point. Not all promises or commands of the Bible are applicable to those living today: I don’t speak in tongues, handle snakes, or drink poison. Nor does my wife wear a head covering because of the angels.

What some people see as “glitches” others will see as “some things hard to understand” (2Pet 3:16) and which need to be carefully exegeted, interpreted, and applied. But I don’t think any of these points are “Internal evidences against the addition of a longer ending for Mark.” Certainly John A. Broadus didn’t think so.

Dr Bob, you don't have an agenda in this matter, do you?