Mark chapter 16

[dyanaprajna2011]

In the debate between ancient New Testament texts, there are two primary manuscripts that are used: the Byzantine majority, from where we get the Textus Receptus, and the Alexandrian text. There are several things to note about the Alexandrian text: the earliest Greek manuscripts are of the Alexandrian type; the majority of the earlier Coptic texts are based on the Alexandrian; there's more manuscripts for the Alexandrian; and, most notably, the Alexandrian texts are shorter. This thread is going to focus on one of those passages.

In Mark chapter 16, the Alexandrian texts end at verse 8, which is when the women went to the tomb of Jesus on Sunday morning, and were told by men in white that he was not there. Verses 9-20, which are found within the Byzantine text, describes some of the encounters of the risen Jesus with his disciples. But why the absence of verse 9-20 of the Alexandrian text? There's some evidence to suggest that some of the earliest of the early church fathers were unaware of this part of Mark, although it must be said that this is disputed. Many scholars today believe that this passage was a later addition to the text, to bring it more in line with the other synoptics.

But, what is the significance of this? Many scholars say that Matthew and Luke drew from Marks gospel. However, if the ending, i.e., the resurrection, post-resurrection appearances, and ascension were missing from Mark's account, from where did Matthew and Luke draw these ideas from? Dating of the gospels here becomes significant. Mark, as the earliest gospel, was probably not written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Matthew and Luke were almost certainly written after this period.

This is my thinking on the subject, and while others have made this suggestion, I'm not putting them forth as fact, but only my thoughts: if Matthew and Luke drew from Mark, and the accounts mentioned earlier were not in the earliest copies of Mark, somewhere between the first writing of Mark, and the first writing of Matthew and Luke, the resurrection story was invented. This would go along with the theory of Jesus the Jewish rabbi, to Jesus the Christ, the mythological demi-god.

Any thougts? Anything anyone would like to add, or debate? Topic is now open for discussion.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Almost certainly the Gospels were first circulated as individual Oral remembrances. Some were gathered into the Proto-Gospel "Q" which was the written source of much of the four Gospels.

On the question of the resurrection. it is not mentioned in the Didache at all, so it was not common knowledge in the mid first century amongst the Christian movement. However lack of a mention is not more than an indicator, It is not a negative "Proof", any more than the lack of a mention in an early gospel is.

 

[fallingblood]

Mark has a resurrection either way though. There just are no resurrection narratives. We are somewhat left to make up for ourselves what happened. That, or it wasn't important. What was important was that he was resurrected. So Mark does have a primitive resurrection suggestion.

 

[jtartar]

In the debate between ancient New Testament texts, there are two primary manuscripts that are used: the Byzantine majority, from where we get the Textus Receptus, and the Alexandrian text. There are several things to note about the Alexandrian text: the earliest Greek manuscripts are of the Alexandrian type; the majority of the earlier Coptic texts are based on the Alexandrian; there's more manuscripts for the Alexandrian; and, most notably, the Alexandrian texts are shorter. This thread is going to focus on one of those passages.

In Mark chapter 16, the Alexandrian texts end at verse 8, which is when the women went to the tomb of Jesus on Sunday morning, and were told by men in white that he was not there. Verses 9-20, which are found within the Byzantine text, describes some of the encounters of the risen Jesus with his disciples. But why the absence of verse 9-20 of the Alexandrian text? There's some evidence to suggest that some of the earliest of the early church fathers were unaware of this part of Mark, although it must be said that this is disputed. Many scholars today believe that this passage was a later addition to the text, to bring it more in line with the other synoptics.

But, what is the significance of this? Many scholars say that Matthew and Luke drew from Marks gospel. However, if the ending, i.e., the resurrection, post-resurrection appearances, and ascension were missing from Mark's account, from where did Matthew and Luke draw these ideas from? Dating of the gospels here becomes significant. Mark, as the earliest gospel, was probably not written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Matthew and Luke were almost certainly written after this period.

This is my thinking on the subject, and while others have made this suggestion, I'm not putting them forth as fact, but only my thoughts: if Matthew and Luke drew from Mark, and the accounts mentioned earlier were not in the earliest copies of Mark, somewhere between the first writing of Mark, and the first writing of Matthew and Luke, the resurrection story was invented. This would go along with the theory of Jesus the Jewish rabbi, to Jesus the Christ, the mythological demi-god.

Any thougts? Anything anyone would like to add, or debate? Topic is now open for discussion.

Dynaprajna,
There are varient scriptures in all the books of the Bible. Most of the reason for this is: the translaters did not have a full understanding of the rest of the scriptures so they were not sure of how a particular word should be translated.
As for the short and the long ending of Mark, there is no contradiction of the other scriptures. These endings can be just a complement to the rest of the scriptures.
God, the same God that Abraham worshiped, promised not to let His word become adulterated, Ps 12:6,7.
Islam came from, but deviated from the Bible, because of not believing that Jesus was the Christ. Mathematicians have concluded that it is a complete impossibility for anyone to have fulfilled even 6, or 7 of the scores of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled during his life. The chance for a person to fulfill all these prophecies, many of which Jesus had no control over is problematic to a Mussulman, because the chance is 1 to the number of all the atoms in the known universe.
Another problem is the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures tell us that all things must be determined by two or three witnesses, Deut 19:15. Why then do not Muslims not obey that command?? There were hundreds of witnesses to the fulfillment of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Even several people who did not believe in Jesus wrote about him.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Dynaprajna,
There are varient scriptures in all the books of the Bible. Most of the reason for this is: the translaters did not have a full understanding of the rest of the scriptures so they were not sure of how a particular word should be translated.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please explain.

As for the short and the long ending of Mark, there is no contradiction of the other scriptures. These endings can be just a complement to the rest of the scriptures.

I'm not sure what you mean by this either.

God, the same God that Abraham worshiped, promised not to let His word become adulterated, Ps 12:6,7.

Here's my issue. Christian apologists say that out of all the various early manuscripts of the Bible, there are some differences, but that they are only minor, such as a different wording, or a misspelled word, or some other grammatical error, but nothing that changes important doctrines of importance for Christianity. For the most part, this does seem to be the case. However, Christians will say that there are no doctrinal variations, in order to attempt to prove the veracity of the Bible, particularly of the New Testament. However, this is not the case. There are two primary early manuscript texts, the Byzantine and the Alexandrian, and there are a great number of differences. How many affect doctrine, is uncertain. But it can be shown that there are at least a few that do, and this is of great importance, for several reasons. I've given here what I believe to be one of the most important difference as far as doctrine is concerned. There are a few others that I have in mind, and I may post on those at a later time. But there's another issue that needs to be addressed. For those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of god, they would have to show that it's remained unchanged, and I believe that this is not the case. I believe there have been major changes in the Bible, and I have shown one here.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Mark has a resurrection either way though. There just are no resurrection narratives. We are somewhat left to make up for ourselves what happened. That, or it wasn't important. What was important was that he was resurrected. So Mark does have a primitive resurrection suggestion.

Assuming you're right, and that there is a type of resurrection account in Mark, why not give accounts of Jesus' appearance afterward? It seems to me like that would be a pretty important detail in the resurrection story. And this isn't even mentioning his ascension. It just seems odd to me to leave something like that out.

 

[fallingblood]

Assuming you're right, and that there is a type of resurrection account in Mark, why not give accounts of Jesus' appearance afterward? It seems to me like that would be a pretty important detail in the resurrection story. And this isn't even mentioning his ascension. It just seems odd to me to leave something like that out.

I agree, it does seem odd. There is quite a bit of debate on the subject. There are some scholars who believe that there was a longer ending, but it was lost. They argue this on the abrupt ending of Mark.

Other believe it was on purpose. Once I get some extra time, I will make a more thorough post on the subject. I just have to refresh myself on the subject a bit.

 

[sojourner]

In the debate between ancient New Testament texts, there are two primary manuscripts that are used: the Byzantine majority, from where we get the Textus Receptus, and the Alexandrian text. There are several things to note about the Alexandrian text: the earliest Greek manuscripts are of the Alexandrian type; the majority of the earlier Coptic texts are based on the Alexandrian; there's more manuscripts for the Alexandrian; and, most notably, the Alexandrian texts are shorter. This thread is going to focus on one of those passages.

In Mark chapter 16, the Alexandrian texts end at verse 8, which is when the women went to the tomb of Jesus on Sunday morning, and were told by men in white that he was not there. Verses 9-20, which are found within the Byzantine text, describes some of the encounters of the risen Jesus with his disciples. But why the absence of verse 9-20 of the Alexandrian text? There's some evidence to suggest that some of the earliest of the early church fathers were unaware of this part of Mark, although it must be said that this is disputed. Many scholars today believe that this passage was a later addition to the text, to bring it more in line with the other synoptics.

But, what is the significance of this? Many scholars say that Matthew and Luke drew from Marks gospel. However, if the ending, i.e., the resurrection, post-resurrection appearances, and ascension were missing from Mark's account, from where did Matthew and Luke draw these ideas from? Dating of the gospels here becomes significant. Mark, as the earliest gospel, was probably not written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Matthew and Luke were almost certainly written after this period.

This is my thinking on the subject, and while others have made this suggestion, I'm not putting them forth as fact, but only my thoughts: if Matthew and Luke drew from Mark, and the accounts mentioned earlier were not in the earliest copies of Mark, somewhere between the first writing of Mark, and the first writing of Matthew and Luke, the resurrection story was invented. This would go along with the theory of Jesus the Jewish rabbi, to Jesus the Christ, the mythological demi-god.

Any thougts? Anything anyone would like to add, or debate? Topic is now open for discussion.

First off, Mark is most commonly dated to just after 70 c.e.
that said, from a purely literary standpoint, the ending "as-is" makes Mark into a cunningly clever comedic tragedy. There is no birth-narrative in Mark, so there is little claim for Jesus' divinity. Mark's Jesus is very, very human. At the end of the story, after all the hoopla, we are left with a couple of women at the empty tomb, and this narration: "They fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."
THE END. It's a powerful ecclesiological and theological statement: The story of Jesus depends upon us telling it. In a certain sense, the body of believers becomes the risen Christ.

 

[obi one]

Dynaprajna,
There are varient scriptures in all the books of the Bible. Most of the reason for this is: the translaters did not have a full understanding of the rest of the scriptures so they were not sure of how a particular word should be translated.
As for the short and the long ending of Mark, there is no contradiction of the other scriptures. These endings can be just a complement to the rest of the scriptures.
God, the same God that Abraham worshiped, promised not to let His word become adulterated, Ps 12:6,7.
Islam came from, but deviated from the Bible, because of not believing that Jesus was the Christ. Mathematicians have concluded that it is a complete impossibility for anyone to have fulfilled even 6, or 7 of the scores of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled during his life. The chance for a person to fulfill all these prophecies, many of which Jesus had no control over is problematic to a Mussulman, because the chance is 1 to the number of all the atoms in the known universe.
Another problem is the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures tell us that all things must be determined by two or three witnesses, Deut 19:15. Why then do not Muslims not obey that command?? There were hundreds of witnesses to the fulfillment of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Even several people who did not believe in Jesus wrote about him.

There are several problems with this post. To point a finger at Muslims for not obeying Dt 19:15, seems a little strange, since "Christians" accept Paul's non witnessed account of his encounter with an Angel of Light, plus they accept Ananius account of his dream.

As for pointing at Ps 12:6-7 to prove that the bible is unadulterated is a bit of a stretch. God's Word is pure, but Yeshua already taught that the good seed would be accompanied by the tare seeds.

 

[sojourner]

There are several problems with this post. To point a finger at Muslims for not obeying Dt 19:15, seems a little strange, since "Christians" accept Paul's non witnessed account of his encounter with an Angel of Light, plus they accept Ananius account of his dream.

As for pointing at Ps 12:6-7 to prove that the bible is unadulterated is a bit of a stretch. God's Word is pure, but Yeshua already taught that the good seed would be accompanied by the tare seeds.

Problem here is that neither Psalms nor Deut. have anything to do with Mark. And the "Wheat and tares" is strictly Matthean, not Markan.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Why make such a issue about who drew from who?

The Holy Spirit was the Guiding Hand behand them!

Dr. O

It's very important in dertermining if there's any validity to the biblical narratives.

 

[CG Didymus]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please explain.



I'm not sure what you mean by this either.



Here's my issue. Christian apologists say that out of all the various early manuscripts of the Bible, there are some differences, but that they are only minor, such as a different wording, or a misspelled word, or some other grammatical error, but nothing that changes important doctrines of importance for Christianity. For the most part, this does seem to be the case. However, Christians will say that there are no doctrinal variations, in order to attempt to prove the veracity of the Bible, particularly of the New Testament. However, this is not the case. There are two primary early manuscript texts, the Byzantine and the Alexandrian, and there are a great number of differences. How many affect doctrine, is uncertain. But it can be shown that there are at least a few that do, and this is of great importance, for several reasons. I've given here what I believe to be one of the most important difference as far as doctrine is concerned. There are a few others that I have in mind, and I may post on those at a later time. But there's another issue that needs to be addressed. For those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of god, they would have to show that it's remained unchanged, and I believe that this is not the case. I believe there have been major changes in the Bible, and I have shown one here.

Does it sound like the Holy Spirit guided the gospel writers? I'm "inspired" to write this, but does that make it the inerrant word of God? If not, what if I say Paul or Peter wrote it? What if 2000 years ago I wrote a long ending to make the gospel of Mark make more sense? How would you know? You'd check it out.
I've read that the style and words that are used in the long ending don't correspond with the rest of Mark. So who wrote it? Who was Mark anyway? He hung out with Paul? Who were his eye-witness sources?
There are so many problems in accepting everything as perfect, infallible and inerrant. I personally don't need it to be perfect. Some Christians do, and they'll go through several hoops to pretend it makes perfect sense. Some Christians say that there isn't any significant doctrinal changes. Baloney!
Tell that to the snake-handlers. They are following the literal word of God by doing exactly what Jesus said. "These signs," he says, "will accompany those who have believed." How many Christians have these signs in their lives? Speaking in tongues, casting out demons, drink deadly poison, healing the sick, plus he said that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved (NASB). So baptism is part of being saved? If you fully believe and don't get baptized are you only partially saved? That sounds like a significant doctrine.
I agree. There seems to be plenty of changes. But, even if the words are exactly the same, it is easy to interpret them and re-interpret them any way you want. It's easy to re-translate words to make slight changes. And, speaking of translating, I wonder what Mark did? Jesus, I assume, spoke Aramaic. Did Mark hear the stories in the original language or in Greek? Either way he had to write it in Greek. Who knows what changes there could be between those two languages? And why is it even important? Because some Christians need to prove their way of believing in God is not only a better way, but it is the one and only true way. What a shame.

 

[sojourner]

Whoever said that the inspired texts were inerrant???
Certainly not me!

 

[Harvey]

This is not a religino for little children when we discuss topics that put doubt of the Bible in peoples I pray, father, show me what I should say to help us here by your holy spirit.

and I am told to look up:


Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

so these little children could not argue with a pharisee and lawyer! they wouldnt stand a chance, but Jesus said "they are going into heaven"

now who are those not going?

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


so what is the difference?
simple faith that god is leding us right by his word.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

so, grab your KJV bible and pray before you open it and you will be fine.

God can use other versions too because his spirit will lead you if you pray.
If you do not pray specifically each time you read the enemy wiill twist the scriptures.

and he is GOOD with scripture to kill you..

devil quotes scripture too:
Mat 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee [he left out: to keep thee in all GODS ways!]: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.


Devil quotes scripture but he always always leaves something out to kill you.

anyway, believe your Bible. It is good to get you through, forget about dead sea scropps, and dont talk about about any corrections or errors, this will kill you.

Just my instructions and advice, thank you for your time.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

anyway, believe your Bible. It is good to get you through, forget about dead sea scropps, and dont talk about about any corrections or errors, this will kill you.

It seems to me that those who refuse to question are more likely to suffer than those who don't. Regardless, why believe something like the Bible if it's not true? Why accept it at face value and not question whether it's right or not? This is intellectual dishonesty, and blind faith. There's no logic or reason in accepting something in such a manner.

 

[Harvey]

I leave people alone, because if anyone has a good heart God will call them in the coming tribulation to come to him.
We cant convert anyone.

 

[M_Wm_Ferguson_MTh]

Many scholars today believe that [Mark 16:9-20] was a later addition to the text, to bring it more in line with the other synoptics.

Although at least two church fathers (Hippolytus and Irenaeus, ca. II and III CE) commented on this passage, and Tatian included it in his Diatessaron (ca. 160-175 CE), neither Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ammonius, Jerome, nor Eusebius anywhere indicated they had knowledge of any Greek manuscript(s) that contained Mark 16:9-20. And there are several extant manuscripts containing this passage which are marked with symbols commonly used by scribes to indicate that a portion of copied text was─or was being added even though it was known to be─spurious (the reader may determine for themselves which are so marked and which definition of spurious they prefer; personally, I like counterfeit).

According to one group of modern Bible translators:

... evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8), and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.

Prof. Ehrman echoes that suggestion:

... this passage was not originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added later by a scribe.
.....
In short, the evidence is sufficient to convince nearly all textual scholars that these verses [Mark 16:9-20]are an addition to Mark.

..., if the ending, i.e., the resurrection, post-resurrection appearances, and ascension were missing from Mark's account, from where did Matthew and Luke draw these ideas from?

The answer to this seems to depend on to which Gospels origins theory one subscribes: 2SH, FH, 2GH, AH, or whatever other theories are "out there" now. Either that, or the writers of Matthew and Luke obtained their material from a later and counterfeit version of Mark, wouldn't you say?
____________________
References:

1: Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus─The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York NY:, HarperCollins Publishers, 2005)pp. 66-67.

2. Bruce M. Metzger:

a: ... and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament─Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New york, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 322-323;
​

b: Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Freiburg, GER: Freiburger Graphische Betriebe, 1994, pp. 102-10, and

c: The New Testament─Its Background, Growth, & Content, 3rd ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2003), p. 109.​

3. NET Bible, Mark 16:9, translators' comment 9.​

 

[CG Didymus]

Good answer M Wm Ferguson MTh. I assume that stands for Master of Theology. I have a BA in Sociology with a minor in Religious Studies from the esteemed San Diego State University which doesn't seem to mean #*%^ around here. Probably because I cut classes to go to the beach. You, on the other hand, sound like someone who knows their stuff. I'd love to have you drop by my thread on original sin and make a few comments.
I really like Mark 16. I'm writing a fiction story on a guy whose moonshining father died trying to "get right with God." The preacher told him, "Merton, if you really mean it, and want to repent, pick up a snake and prove it to the Lord." Of course he picks it up and dies. But in real life, I complain to "literal" believing Christians that those verses were the very words of Jesus--He said that his followers would have those "signs."
Anyway, if it's an addition, then it blows the whole idea of the Bible being the exact Word of God. (I was wondering about Daniel and the dragon also?) The perfection of the Bible is so important to some believers. How do you see it? And, how do you handle those that argue for its perfect literalness, infallibility and inerrancy? It seems like there is no middle ground. You're either with them or against them kind of thing.

 

[M_Wm_Ferguson_MTh]

You ... sound like someone who knows their stuff.

Thanks for the good words, which are not what I usually receive from the average poster in a Christianity-related forum :banghead3

You're correct about the M.Th. Decades ago, I did a double major as a seminary undergrad in Religious Education and Religious History. But, as a grad student, my concentration was and remains upon lower textual criticism (the study of existing manuscripts of the Scriptures in order to determine the original text).

Even though I did spend several years in pulpits, I'm more into Bible words than I am theological hypotheses. I'd be speaking out of field if I attempted to answer your questions, which might be better asked of someone qualified in higher textual criticism (D.Th. or Th.D), or perhaps of a Divinities major (D.D. or Th.D.)

 

[sojourner]

M_Wm_Ferguson_MTh: I'd be speaking out of field if I attempted to answer your questions, which might be better asked of someone qualified in higher textual criticism (D.Th. or Th.D), or perhaps of a Divinities major (D.D. or Th.D.)

Your answer seems spot on to me.