Mark ends at Mark 16:8

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.