What Happened to the last twelve verses of Mark

Slow learner, obviously!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=51592

And I was only gone for three days and three nights!

Ed

 

Bible Gateway.com shows below:

NIV said : The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.

NASB said: Later mss add vv 9-20

NCV said: Verses 9–20 are not included in some of the earliest surviving Greek copies of Mark.

ESV said: Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20

The Message said: Mark 16:9-20 [the portion in brackets] is contained only in later manuscripts

TNIV said: The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.

The evidence on Mark 16:9-20 shows that massive manuscripts gone back to 2nd Century contained the last twelve verses of Mark.

 

I agree on the inclusion of the end of Mark, but could you show us the massive manuscripts gone back to the 2nd century that include it? I thought we only had a few scraps from the second century and was unaware that any of them had the end of Mark in them.

BTW, thanks to Ehud for rewording the debate in a less volatile manner.

 

"The last twelve verses of Mark" are in my Bible, as well as all those that I do not use on any regular basis, even when the disclaimer(s) are present.

That said, uh - exactly where are all these so-called "massive manuscripts" that are "gone back to 2nd Century" hiding? In the Vatican library or the Library of Congrtess, maybe??

I was under the impression that aside from a very small handful of MSS, most of which are partial in nature, there are few near complete manuscripts of anything like that antiquity, regardless of which 'MSS' tradition one follows.

"2nd Century" is prior to 200 A.D.

Parts of p64, p66, p67, among other papyrii (most of which do not even contain any of Mark), and a couple of fragmentary Old Latin MSS do not exactly "massive manuscripts" make.

Let's tell it straight.

Ed

 

EdSutton and C4K, when I said, "gone back to 2nd Century," I mean the interval.

 

You make no effort at textual criticism but to quote Hitler of all people, to express exactly how you feel about those of us who question the genuineness of the verses in question. Wow!

 

While I am pretty sure I don't wanna' rate Adolph Hitler as any textual critic I wanna' put much stock into, his name did arise a few months ago on a thread where some manuscripts that were 'rediscovered' by Dr. Daniel Wallace, after having been thought to be lost, and known then to be in Albania before WWII, were mentioned.

Incidentally, one of these 6th Century manuscripts of John, that was mentioned, did not have the so-named 'Pericope de Adultera' (Jn. 7:53- 8:11) included, for whatever that is worth.

Read about it here:

http://ferrelljenkins.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/greek-nt-manuscripts-discovered-in-albania/

http://bible.org/page.php?page_id=5972

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-32.0.html

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=47987&highlight=Hitler

Ed

 

At least he didn't call you satan but it's close. Seems insults like that shouldn't be allowed here. :tear:

 

Nothin' as far as I can tell. I found Mk. 16:9-20 in every Bible I own, plus all 21 English versions listed on Bible Gateway.

Ed

 

I still don't have any manuscripts to check, but just checked my Bibles again, this morning.

Yup!

Mark 16: 9-20 is still there in every last one of 'em.

Don't know what happened to whatever Bibles some others are checking.

Ed

 

On pg. 462 of The Canon and Text of the New Testament(1929 reprint) by Dr. Casper Rene Gregory (Gregory was a Textual Critic who favored the Critical Texts and Alexandrian manuscripts) he said this about the Dean of Chichester, John Willam Burgon:

"Burgon did a great deal of work in searching out manuscripts, and he published a very learned treatise upon the closing verses attached to the Gospel of Mark. It is a pity that he only published his notes about manuscripts in The Guardian newpaper. Would that more of the clergy could be induced to work as Scrivener and Burgon worked in furthering the text of the New Testament."

This defense of the last twelve verses of Mark can be purchased at the webstore at www.deanburgonsociety.org.

In this book, some of the evidence that Burgon lists in favor of the last 12 verses of Mark is as follows:

1. Of the 5 oldest Codices only 2 of them omit the verses (Vaticanus & Sinaiticus)

2. After these 5, the next 15 of the oldest ancient Codices contain the verses.

3. 618 out of 620 miniscule manuscripts contain the verses.

4. All Latin versions, which was the official and most common language throughout Europe throughout the dark ages, contain the verses. Some Old Latin manuscripts date back to the 2nd century. Even Jerome's Vulgate of the 4th century contained the verses.

5. They are also contained in the Gothic, Coptic, and all but 1 of the Syrian versions.

6. As for Patristic evidence, the verses are quoted in the writings of Justin Martyr (150 AD), Irenaeus (180 AD), Hippolytus (250AD), Jerome (330-420 AD), Augustine (395- 430 AD), Nestorious (430 AD), Cyril (440 AD), Hesychius (430 AD).

7. Jerome and Victor of Antioch (425-450 AD) both accused that these verses were deliberately omitted by scribes in their day.

8. All ancient lectionaries (over 2000) contain these verses.

I would conclude that the last 12 verses of Mark belong in the Bible and that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupt.

God bless.

 

What Happened to the last twelve verses of Mark?

They got read and copied and printed. That's what.

I regard them as incompetent and disregard them. If you claim you do regard them, then you speak in other languages, pick up snakes, and drink poison, or else you are either an unbeliever or a liar (supposing the latter does not inherantly nullify the former).

 

I am guessing that was intended as hyperbole.

 

Re: Method

Before any meaningful interaction may take place, one must declare his METHOD of textual criticism.

Let's also not neglect to mention that the Dean Burgon Society has NOTHING to do with Dean Burgon. In fact, it is a KJV Only group that even the Dean himself couldn not join.

There is no relationship whatsoever other than name.

I see. So he counts manuscripts. Not a very mature TC method but now we know it.

Generally true but irrelevant since the Gothic version dates to 398 AD. He doesn't mention that it is also lacking in both some Georgian and Armenian mss. (at least in this argument as posted)

The Justin Martyr citation is blind faith gone to seed. It is an allusion to snakes which could just as easily be explained as a reference to Acts 27 since it cites no author and doesn't even address the other points. Irenaeus cited it; the others are irrelevant since it is ALREADY ADMITTED that it goes back to about 170 AD.

Why would you conclude such? Because it's in a bunch of other mss?

Let's broaden the picture. What if I told you:

1) There are MORE THAN TWO endings of Mark; there are four or five, and SOME mss. that contain the longer ending also contain the shorter or an alternate ending.

2) Some of the mss. that contain it are marked with oblei, denoting the suspicion of its spurious nature early in the transmission stage.

3) Eusebius and others note that majority of their manuscripts LACKING the last 12 verses.

4) The last 12 verses contain several non-Markan terms, describe second century church practices, and contain at least one theological error where Jesus appeared to 'the eleven' (how can that be if Judas and Thomas were missing? That's 10).

Keep in mind that no textual critic decides this on the basis of points one or two. It is the CUMULATIVE force of the argument that carries the day.

I could also note Burgon's own motivational fallacy - he believed in baptismal regeneration and Mark 16:16 is the only SUREFIRE proof text that mandates baptism for salvation.

 

Hey Ehud!

You started three posts and responded only once.

7/31/2008
Codex Vaticanus online
["Here again Mark 16:1-8, LOOK Closely to the last twelve verses (Erased)"]

7/27/2008
What Happened to the last twelve verses of Mark?

7/24/2008
We know where God's Word is not.
["Here is the erased (alleged), portion of the last 12 verses of Mark"]

You intimidate and make accusations but don’t make any attempt at a fatal thrust.
This stinks!
At least you are true to your name-sake and run for cover after the deed is done.
Judges 15:15-30

Rob

 

You have no evidence that he could not join the DBS.

 

No evidence?

Do they accept membership registrations from dead people? :laugh:

Rob

 

Well is it in " The Originals? " That is the only question that really matters. We do know, no one has seen the Original of the book of Mark it's hard to know what was in the Original of Mark or not. We all know only the Original of each book was inspired, therefore everything else is just a copy. All copies have error. So it is hard to know what is scripture and what is not scripture. You just have to take it by faith.


Original

 

Actually, its not that hard to know what is credibly the accurate text of scripture. It is not simply a 'blind' faith, but a faith that is based upon some very solid supporting evidence.