The Ending of Mark

Dr Bob: "Agenda? Nope. My Greek testament has this ending and so does my NKJV from which I will preach this Sunday."

Do I understand properly that you will be preaching this Sunday from the long ending of Mark?

I probably don't, but this raises another significant (and intelligent) question regarding canonical status of the passage, and not only this one but the woman in adultery and the Johannine Comma (I wouldn't move to those until a lot more pro and con regarding the long ending of Mark has been discussed, however).

If it is *not* original to Mark, and therefore *not* canonical "scripture", at best it can only serve for illustrative purposes, but not as a text from the word of God that can serve as a basis for preaching.

If it *is* canonical scripture, then we certainly should preach and teach from it and appeal to it as authoritative.

A third possibility, supported by Farmer in his book on the last 12 verses of Mark, is that the passage is non-Markan, but still canonical, having been included in the first transmitted form of this gospel. Whether anyone else engages in this more complex way of explaining things, I don't know.

I suppose there is a fourth possibility, and that would be never to preach from any disputed passage, phrase, or word -- but that would probably cause more problems than other manners of approach.

Obviously, some decisions have to be made on this matter prior to preaching or teaching, correct?

 

Ziggy says "Whether anyone else engages in this more complex way of explaining things, I don't know."

The marginal notes in the NAB say basically the same thing about both Mark 16:9-20 ("This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark") and John 7:53-8:11 ("The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. ... The Catholic Church accepts this passage as canonical scripture.").

 

I wasn't exactly counting the Roman Catholics on this issue, but natters is correct in that regard. (Farmer, BTW, was Methodist, in case anyone was wondering; now deceased, taught at SMU for years).

 

In this way the MVs have influenced you not to preach the whole counsel of God, and thus you have subtracted from the Word of God.

 

Unwarranted statement. I have taught each of these Books of the Bible, verse by verse. I taught them using different versions and shared why and how some translations did not include the verses. And how there are different manuscripts.

BTW---My favorite MV, the NKJV includes these verses in the text.

Bro Tony

 

Unwarranted statement. I have taught each of these Books of the Bible, verse by verse. I taught them using different versions and shared why and how some translations did not include the verses. And how there are different manuscripts.

BTW---My favorite MV, the NKJV includes these verses in the text.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]So you admit that your preaching causes people to doubt what God actually says. I will pass on that kind of preaching.

 

Terry,

Your continued ignorant attacks are unwarranted. You've put your faith in one version without any understanding of the underlying text or the original Greek meanings. You are willfully ignorant and choose to stay that way. That is alright for you, but I am responsible to teach the Truth. Go ahead walk in your ignorance and attack other Bible believing Christians. I choose to use what God has given--His Word.

Bro Tony

 

Strange! The Rice Reference Bible - KJV named what textual variants on Mark 16:9-20. </font>[/QUOTE]Kinda bias isn't it when that is all they cite?

 

Who are you planning to "pass on" such preaching to this time?

 

Who are you planning to "pass on" such preaching to this time? </font>[/QUOTE]Probably to his KJVO preacher.

 

Back to the subject. What if anything is taken away from doctrine of the Bible if the ending of Mark is found to be added by well meaning scribes?

How does it change doctrine if we find out it is on the original manuscripts? Either way?

When God means preserving His Word or Words, he is referring to the doctrines, stories and context of the Bible, not whether or not an obvious change from the name "Jesus" to a capitalized "He" which is very obvious occurs during translation. If this closer fits the original manuscript, I would rather have it that way, because that is the way God intended it.

You CANNOT save individual words when you translate from Hebrew and Greek into English, or any other language for that matter. There are MANY words that do not have word-for-word equivalents in each language, therefore the translator must get across a concept.

However, Terry seems to feel like the KJV is inspired over the manuscripts since we are to use the KJV to translate other languages. Or at least check the accuracy.

This would result in something equivalent to playing the old telephone game of passing down a sentence by whispering from person to person. The inaccuracies would stack up on you.

Nobody has yet to provide scriptural proof of anything different.

 

I firmly believe the KJV is &lt;attack on Bible deleted&gt;. In many places it takes from the Word of God, in many places it adds to it. In the rest it largely mistranslates it and brings forth confusion.

[ October 15, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

What a foolish statement to make. Only someone who knows absolutely nothing about God's Word could possible say such an ignorant thing.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with courage of their convictions as much as just being honest. There are serious questions regarding the authenticity of the longer ending, but it's not a slam dunk. I think it is appropriate to let readers know that certain passages may not be God-breathed Scripture.

The numbering scheme simply allows people with different versions to refer to the same verse using the same reference.

The situation in Acts 8:37 is totally different from the longer ending of Mark. There is really no good evidence that that verse was ever part of Scripture.

Andy

 

Methinks situations such as these develop from differing philosophies between translators or groups of translators. The AV men were being very careful to include anything which might be Scripture and which fit the 'beyond-a-doubt' Scripture, while later translators such as the NASB committee was being very careful not to include material whose authenticity is questionable. I don't think either the AV men nor the NASB people had any conspiracy against God's word as certain authors contend.

 

manchester: "I firmly believe the KJV is not the Word of God. In many places it takes from the Word of God, in many places it adds to it. In the rest it largely mistranslates it and brings forth confusion."

Terry: "What a foolish statement to make. Only someone who knows absolutely nothing about God's Word could possible say such an ignorant thing."

On the other hand, there are some of us who perceive the intended irony in the original declaration.