The Ending of Mark

Dean John William Burgon exhaustively studied the manuscript evidence on this in his Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark in 1871 (reprint ed. available from The Bible for Today). Burgon goes through the statements of the critics of his day against these verses, and shows them to have been the result of shoddiness of scholarship; he evaluates the passage on stylistic grounds; he examines the church fathers and the manuscripts on this passage; he even examines the oldest manuscripts and finds that in Codex B, or Vaticanus, at this passage there appears after v. 8 "the only vacant column in the whole manuscript;--a blank space abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless withheld." He draws the obvious conclusion that the scribe who prepared Vaticanus "was instructed to leave them out,--and he obeyed: but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent!" (p. 87; emphasis original here and afterwards).

(http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/mkending.htm)

 

According to this reasoning brother, you can’t prove that the KJV (probably a 1769 version) you hold in your hand matches the “original” master archetype manuscript the KJV translators produced because it also has disappeared.

Therefore you are in the same situaution of which you accuse the MV users.

Also, there are differences today even among the “modern” KJV Bibles, especially between the Oxford and Cambridge editions.

Here is a URL where this absurdity is taken to its ridiculous end.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

Having said that AVBunyan, I agree with your assessment that the longer ending of Mark speaks of those primitive Apostles and disciples who "heard Him" and were commissioned by the Lord to go out into the world with the Gospel. The Book of Hebrews shows this…


Hebrews 2
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?


As for “baptism” in Mark's ending…


Mark 16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

This may also be speaking of the apostolic “sign” gift to Israel as an officiating witness of the Holy Spirit of God to Israel and then again to Israel as a witness that the uncircumsized gentile nations were now canidates for the Kingdom.

Not necessarily a water baptism but another baptism followed by water baptism.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and withfire:

This baptism was followed by wonders, miracles, etc…

First to the nation of Israel:

Acts 2
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Then to the gentiles:

Acts 10:44
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

In any case, FWIW, I believe the longer ending is the inspired text (in the koine).


HankD

 

HandD:

According to that location this scripture is a warning,
if it ain't like this, then it ain't real SCRIPTURE.

WARNING LABEL # 1 - Deuteronomy 4:2

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you,
neither shall ye diminish ought from it,
that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD
your God which I command you.

So I guess that the original KJV isn't
even a KJV?

Deut 4:2 (KJV1611 Edition):
Ye shall not adde vnto the word which I command you,
neither shall you diminish ought from it,
that ye may keepe the Commaundements of the Lord
your God, which I command you.

As for the subject at hand. I have several worthy English
versions, several of them written in the actual language i
use the market. Among the set I have all the possible endings.
Of course, I don't make my doctrine on one and only one verse.
In fact, I found out God stresses the most important doctrines
over and over. For example, I've a list of some 8 dozen
titles of Jesus - Jesus must be important

 

Absolutely amazing - a Tectual Criticism Conference to discuss the ending of Mark. Lestor Roloff was right when he said, "America is an insane asylum run by the inmates!" Maybe it is, "Modern christianity has become an ansane asylum run by the inmates!"

America is on its way to hell - good missionaries are needing support and there is a conference to discuss (Criticsm) the ending of Mark :BangHead:
That's just to much. But I'm not surprised. :tonofbricks:

Thanks Rob - this made my day or killed it - not sure!?!?!?!.

 

That's good - I like that Rob :thumbs:

BTW - I may have mocked the Conference a bit - may have gone too far - my bad. Could have handled that a little better.

God bless :wavey:

 

Uh, the problem is that there is a group of people deluded by
the ONE ENDING ONLY conspiracy. It is a part of the one true
Demonination doctrine. Can't we accept that God
has a group of people he is using mightily for each ending of Mark?

 

Yes, you definitely are, Rob!

:wavey: :thumbs: :applause:

 

Another common point of interest AVB!

We used to listen to Roloff frequently on the radio. He came to my Alma Mater (Calvary Bible College and Theological Seminary) in KCMO and preached. Right in the middle of his preaching he would often break out in song.

There was never any question where he stood on any issue.

We miss him.

HankD

 

By far the earliest witness of any kind (Irenaeus, 2nd c.) is for the authenticity of Mk 16:9-20, and only 2 Greek MSS before the 12th c. omit the verses. I'll stick with the earliest, most received and canonical text.

 

UBS text in footnotes cites Clement as one witnessing against this, FTR, and Irenaeus as one witnessing for it. I certainly have neither the time nor resources nor the real desire to expend such just to see which is the better 'claim' against the two individuals, but would merely say that Clement, if true, is much earlier than Irenaeus, by about a century, being named by Paul in a couple of his epistles, and potentially being one of a half dozen or so 'known' individuals who might have been the author of Hebrews, even.

Ed

 

.................

 

I cannot see where Clement of Rome is cited in support of omitting Mk 16:9-20 in the UBS GNT. I'm looking at the 4th ed. rev. The NA 27th ed. also does not cite him. What edition are you looking at?

 

Only 2 Greek MSS before the 12th century, and only 3 in the current salvaged records of all time, omit Mk 16:9-20. If our NT is so scrappingly attested in its original language, I say we can do no other than call into question the veracity of every word in the entire NT unless 100 percent of the Greek MSS are in agreement, and even then the attested reading might be wholly corrupt.