Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | EdB | 125336 | ||
Kalos Since you offered this quote. Does this author offer any suggestion to the correct ending of Mark? Does he feel Mark should end with "They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."? To me that seems abrupt and ending on a negative. I find that unlikely. What is his thoughts. EdB |
||||||
2 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | Morant61 | 125345 | ||
Greetings EdB! Here is some information about the endings of Mark. ************************************* There are four versions of the ending of Mark. 1) The first does not have the last twelve verses of the commonly receved text of Mark. To quote Bruce Metzger: They "...are absent from the two odest Greek manuscrpts, from the Old Latin codex Bobienss, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgia manuscripts. Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knoledge of the existence of these verses, furthermore Eusebious and Jerome attest that the passage was abent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The orginal form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammoninu) makes no provision for numbeing sections fo the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indiate a spurious addition to a document." Source (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger, pp. 122-123). 2) The second ending is found in several mid to late versions. It says, "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told And after this Jesus himself sent out by meas of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishble proclamation of eternal salvation." This addition is then followed by vv. 9-20 in most of the manuscripts containing this ending. 3) The third is the traditional ending (vv. 9-20). It is found in the vast number of witnesses: including, A, C, D, k, X, W, ect... The only problem is that these manuscripts are not as old as those supporting the first manuscript and they contain a different style of writting than the rest of Mark. 4) There was also a longer version which circulated in the fourth century accoding to Jermore. It is only found in one Greek manuscript. Mark 16:9-20 is not found in the following manuscripts: 1) Aleph (dating from the 4th century - one of the oldest complete manuscripts containing all of the new Testment books). 2) Beta (dating from the 4th century) 3) The Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk) dating from the 4th to 5th century. 4) The Sinaitic Syriac manuscript (about the 4th century). 5) 100 Aremenian manuscripts. 6) The two oldest Georgian manuscripts. 7) Clement of Alexandria shows no knowledge of the longer ending (4th Century). 8) Origen shows no knowledge of the longer ending (3rd century). Granted, these last two are arguments from silence, but they had opportunity to quote the longer ending if it were original. 9) Eusebius states that the longer ending was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to him (4th century). 10) Jerome states that the longer ending was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to him (5th century). 11) Many manuscripts list it with notations that mark it as a spurious reading. 12) Many others include the passage, but note that it was absent from older Greek copies. This is the external textual evidence for the exclusion of Mark 16:9-20. Source(Bruce Metzger's, "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament") ************************************ There is some textual evidence for the long ending dating from the fourth century, but it is limited. Further, the patristic evidence indicates that the longer ending was known in the fourth century, but not common. As time passed, it became more common - perhaps for the reason you mentiond, that it didn't seem likely that Mark would end on such an abrupt note. However, the best evidence seems to indicate that he did. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | EdB | 125354 | ||
Tim I have studied these arguments many times and they all seem to leave an air of uncertainty. It is my belief the Mark did write more but for one reason or another it was lost. I believe what we have now Mark 16:9-20 is an attempt to rectify the situation possibly quoting oral accounts. I believe the extension to Mark is included in the early and late Latin manuscripts and therefore is in most other language translations and was generally accepted for nearly 1600-1800 years. I can further see this as God’s divine intervention to preserve his word even though we may find a discrepancy in authors since the terminology is a little different. Again nothing is added that isn’t stated elsewhere and in itself does not create any now doctrine. EdB |
||||||
4 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | Morant61 | 125367 | ||
Greetings EdB! Since there are four possible endings, it certainly is true that there is an 'air of uncertainty'. :-) Of the four, two seem to be certainly not original. These would be the 'short ending' and the expanded long ending. The two best options, with arguements for each, are the traditional ending and stopping at Mark 16:8. Personally, I would go with stopping at Mark 16:8 simply because I think the evidence is a little stronger - but not much! :-) Either way, I would never base doctrine upon the passage - there simply is too much doubt. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | EdB | 125385 | ||
Tim I agree, however I wonder if God does? We throw 2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, as a bloody sword but then we say, "well maybe this was added and this was deleted and this is only talking to this situation and that only pertains to that society and etc." We take words like 'one', 'all', 'whosoever' and put conditions, waivers, new meanings, and even manage to ignore some words to make scripture fit what we deem is proper. When we talk about it we smile and say well there is just to much doubt, uncertainty, lack of evidence etc. Did God want His Word to viewed as that wishy washy? I’m sure you know all the arguments that were used to condone, justify and okay over what the Bible said in the past are now being used to condone such things as homosexuality divorce, abortion and even acceptance of other religions. All the tactics that were used to make the Bible more acceptable to the feminists are now being used by the homosexual community. We see words that were modified and changed to support many “favored” doctrines, now the same thing is being done to bring acceptance of Islam and Christian cults. Maybe it is time we take our learned reasoning out of the picture and accept what God has called it, His Word. And in doing this we might even consider what may have been added was in fact God ordained. EdB |
||||||
6 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | Morant61 | 125429 | ||
Greetings EdB! The only problem I have with your position is that we have manuscripts that contain 'four' different endings to Mark. Sure, let's call God's Word - God's Word! But, which one is God's Word? :-) To me, the original autographs are God's Word. If a copyist was faithful and accurate, his copy is God's Word. However, if he was sloppy, or simply added or deleted something, then the resulting text is not God's Word. This is why the task of textual criticism is so important. It is vital that we know what the originals actually said. This whole topic can be a little frighting when people first start studying it, but over time, one discovers that most of the variant readings have to do with spelling and/or word order. The manuscripts agree with one another the vast majority of the time, and when they don't - it is usually just a matter of spelling or word order. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | EdB | 125432 | ||
Tim I guess I would say we should stick to the manuscripts that rendered the Latin that was used from the earliest on. If I'm not mistaken that series of manuscripts was also what was used to render most early copies of the German and English translations. It wasn't until later that other "older" manuscripts were found and the confusion began. EdB |
||||||
8 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | Morant61 | 125456 | ||
Greetings EdB! The only problem with that approach is that they only had a handful of Greek manuscripts and they were all of one family type - hence they all contained the same errors. If we are concerned about God's Word, why wouldn't we want the oldest possible manuscripts that we can find? The very first copies are naturally going to be more accurate than the 1,000th copies! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
9 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | kalos | 125461 | ||
Certainty at any cost? 'A number of arguments have been put forth in defense of King James Onlyism.'...One of these is: 'We can't be certain of what God says unless we possess a single translation (and/or Greek text); that is, [KJV Only-ists claim], discrepancies among versions prove that one is correct and the others false.' 'The desire for absolute certainty when it comes to textual matters, while understandable, is not realistic. History has left us with numerous extant manuscripts. These not only differ from each other, but none are flawless representations of the autographs. Even the King James is not without imperfection. For example, "a dozen or so readings in the KJV find no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever."[20]' 'Of course, some might be tempted to make the relative complexity of the textual critic's work a reason for skepticism. But Carson notes: 'There is no need for such rigorous pessimism. The vast majority of the manuscript errors have to do with details of orthography, word order, and the like. Moreover, many of the theologically significant variants can be sorted out quite easily by comparing manuscript with manuscript. The result . . . is a certain word from God.[24]' '20. D. A. Carson (The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism), 69. '24. Carson, 24.' ____________________ http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/truthandthings/perspect.kjo.html |
||||||
10 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | Morant61 | 125462 | ||
Greetings Kalos! Amen! :-) It always appears at first glance that textual variants are a reason for discouragement, but further study demonstrates that God's message is quite clear! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||