Major problems in Mark's account of Jesus' Resurrection appearances

[Nick01]

So its exactly as I said...these text are very much accepted by most if not all...and many if not most believe them to be original to Mark... and what I reproved you for was your first comment which has little or no basis in truth....let me remind you what you wrote...
"The resurrection stories in mark are thought by most to be later additions"

No. Most do not accept them as original. Even most do not accept that 9-20 should be considered canonical (yes, there are people who believe 9-20 are canonical even if Mark didn't write that text. Don't really know how that's defensible, but there you go). Read what I actually wrote again, I clearly state that "MOST OF THEM do not believe it is original". There's nothing in there that implies I am agreeing most accept 9-20 as original.

Simply handwaving what I write away and asserting the exact opposite means nothing. Also feel free to engage with the actual evidence and arguments that text critics use, instead of simply appealing to authority.

And the quote in red is not something I wrote, though I basically agree with it (if by 'resurrection stores' we mean 9-20 or the other alternate endings of Mark that are placed after v.8 that include actual resurrection appearances). You may have me confused with someone else in this thread.

 

[Mitspa]

No. Most do not accept them as original. Even most do not accept that 9-20 should be considered canonical (yes, there are people who believe 9-20 are canonical even if Mark didn't write that text. Don't really know how that's defensible, but there you go). Read what I actually wrote again, I clearly state that "MOST OF THEM do not believe it is original". There's nothing in there that implies I am agreeing most accept 9-20 as original.

Simply handwaving what I write away and asserting the exact opposite means nothing. Also feel free to engage with the actual evidence and arguments that text critics use, instead of simply appealing to authority.

And the quote in red is not something I wrote, though I basically agree with it (if by 'resurrection stores' we mean 9-20 or the other alternate endings of Mark that are placed after v.8 that include actual resurrection appearances). You may have me confused with someone else in this thread.

Oh ..then how did you get in the middle of this conversation? My point was first made to reprove that comment...but the fact that Mark 16:9-20 is well established as ORIGINAL scripture has already been proven by my previous post...The fact that it abides in so many text and that's its accepted as Holy Writ is not even debatable... So you believe its in question...I believe its clearly proven in the text...but no one questions the first of Mark 16...and to make that statement is just error.

 

[Mitspa]

Lets try to use a little common sense...the early copies of the Greek end with

Mr 16:8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Now MANY if not MOST later copies continue the passages .... Is it possible and likely that part of the early text was lost?

The fact that these lost scriptures was quoted in other Christian writtings as early as the 2nd century...seals the deal for me...and I don't really care if some scholars cant put that logic together.

 

[Nick01]

Oh ..then how did you get in the middle of this conversation? My point was first made to reprove that comment...but the fact that Mark 16:9-20 is well established as ORIGINAL scripture has already been proven by my previous post...The fact that it abides in so many text and that's its accepted as Holy Writ is not even debatable... So you believe its in question...I believe its clearly proven in the text...but no one questions the first of Mark 16...and to make that statement is just error.

Why am I here? Because it's a forum, mate. Open invite. It's also a topic I find interesting, mostly because I think truth is a thing worth searching after. I'm also interested in trying to moderate people's positions when they're being incredibly dogmatic on an issue that doesn't need to have that position taken.

TBH, every time you say the issue is 'beyond debate', that 'no one' questions the long ending, when you make erroneous judgements of people, and when you simply misrepresent what a lot of bright and godly evangelical scholars have to say on the issue, I feel that's just more reason to continue the discussion. As Christians, we should be more interested in actually discussing issues of truth and reality reasonably than we are simply defending our own position. More interested in representing what people say and think accurately rather than whitewashing everything at all costs. And the FACT of the matter is simply that this issue is neither as critical nor as clear cut as you're trying to make it out to be, and it's by no means a marker for a bible-based evangelical faith.

Lets try to use a little common sense...the early copies of the Greek end with

Mr 16:8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Now MANY if not MOST later copies continue the passages .... Is it possible and likely that part of the early text was lost?

I see what you are proposing - that the 9-20 ending was lost very early, but was retrieved by the end of the second century in at least some manuscripts (enoguh to be referenced by Irenaeus), but lost in the two extant codices dating from the next century, and, according to the likes of Eusebius and Jerome, a great many other Greek texts of Mark in the century after that. It's certainly a possibility of some sort, in that it theoretically could happen like that, but I'm not sure why this is inherently more logical or plausible than the theory a v.8 ending was original. Happy for you to explain in more detail how you think that happened, because I'm not seeing the logic at this point.

The problem is this: Irenaeus is the only second century father that seems to specifically reference a part of the Long Ending as part of the text. This is not overly surprising, as almost everyone accepts that 9-20 is a very early addition (by very early, we are talking the better part of 200 years after the original). However, other early fathers do not reference it. Later fathers do reference it in the context of pointing out that large numbers of copies differ over whether the ending is genuine or not (Eusebius and Jerome specifically state they don't think those verses are genuine).

Others often put up the likes of Tertullian or Justin Marty as evidence for the Long Ending, but in almost every case they are either not quoting anything but making general references (that are too far from quotations of the text, or that coupld be applied to other texts), or the specific wording makes it far more likely they are (as we would expect of Latin fathers) using Latin texts rather than Greek texts, which already puts us a whole step away from what the original Greek texts said. And, of course, all patristic evidence is hampered by the fact that it is far harder to establish critical editions of the patristics than Scripture. Off the top of my head, I believe the earliest witness we have to Tertullian is the 12th century. The writings of the fathers have the same problem as the Scriptures (we don't have the originals), except the problem is even larger.

But the point, again, is to work out what is more likely: that it was lost, removed, or added. That it was lost is very difficult to believe, as it would have to either be lost within a copy of the original to have caused the widespread absence we see in large portions of the evidence, or it would have to be lost simultaneously in a large number of copies.

Deliberate removal is also far from likely - why jettison the whole portion of text, a whole 12 verses, something unprecedented in the whole study of biblical textual criticism? Why jettison the resurrection from Mark entirely? If you had issues with certain parts (e.g. snake and poison), why not just redact those portions? Why lose the whole block of text and end at v.8, of all places?

But you are correct to say that most copies of the NT contain the passage, either just 9-20, or with the alternate short ending, or with some sort of critical disclaimer. It's more than 95% of all the extant texts we have. But that doesn't mean a lot when most of those are at least a millenium from the autographs. A raw percentage achieves little in these matters, for obvious reasons.

The fact that these lost scriptures was quoted in other Christian writtings as early as the 2nd century...seals the deal for me...and I don't really care if [most] scholars cant put that logic together.

Fixed

 

[Mitspa]

[/B]Why am I here? Because it's a forum, mate. Open invite. It's also a topic I find interesting, mostly because I think truth is a thing worth searching after. I'm also interested in trying to moderate people's positions when they're being incredibly dogmatic on an issue that doesn't need to have that position taken.

TBH, every time you say the issue is 'beyond debate', that 'no one' questions the long ending, when you make erroneous judgements of people, and when you simply misrepresent what a lot of bright and godly evangelical scholars have to say on the issue, I feel that's just more reason to continue the discussion. As Christians, we should be more interested in actually discussing issues of truth and reality reasonably than we are simply defending our own position. More interested in representing what people say and think accurately rather than whitewashing everything at all costs. And the FACT of the matter is simply that this issue is neither as critical nor as clear cut as you're trying to make it out to be, and it's by no means a marker for a bible-based evangelical faith.

[/I][/B]

I see what you are proposing - that the 9-20 ending was lost very early, but was retrieved by the end of the second century in at least some manuscripts (enoguh to be referenced by Irenaeus), but lost in the two extant codices dating from the next century, and, according to the likes of Eusebius and Jerome, a great many other Greek texts of Mark in the century after that. It's certainly a possibility of some sort, in that it theoretically could happen like that, but I'm not sure why this is inherently more logical or plausible than the theory a v.8 ending was original. Happy for you to explain in more detail how you think that happened, because I'm not seeing the logic at this point.

The problem is this: Irenaeus is the only second century father that seems to specifically reference a part of the Long Ending as part of the text. This is not overly surprising, as almost everyone accepts that 9-20 is a very early addition (by very early, we are talking the better part of 200 years after the original). However, other early fathers do not reference it. Later fathers do reference it in the context of pointing out that large numbers of copies differ over whether the ending is genuine or not (Eusebius and Jerome specifically state they don't think those verses are genuine).

Others often put up the likes of Tertullian or Justin Marty as evidence for the Long Ending, but in almost every case they are either not quoting anything but making general references (that are too far from quotations of the text, or that coupld be applied to other texts), or the specific wording makes it far more likely they are (as we would expect of Latin fathers) using Latin texts rather than Greek texts, which already puts us a whole step away from what the original Greek texts said. And, of course, all patristic evidence is hampered by the fact that it is far harder to establish critical editions of the patristics than Scripture. Off the top of my head, I believe the earliest witness we have to Tertullian is the 12th century. The writings of the fathers have the same problem as the Scriptures (we don't have the originals), except the problem is even larger.

But the point, again, is to work out what is more likely: that it was lost, removed, or added. That it was lost is very difficult to believe, as it would have to either be lost within a copy of the original to have caused the widespread absence we see in large portions of the evidence, or it would have to be lost simultaneously in a large number of copies.

Deliberate removal is also far from likely - why jettison the whole portion of text, a whole 12 verses, something unprecedented in the whole study of biblical textual criticism? Why jettison the resurrection from Mark entirely? If you had issues with certain parts (e.g. snake and poison), why not just redact those portions? Why lose the whole block of text and end at v.8, of all places?

But you are correct to say that most copies of the NT contain the passage, either just 9-20, or with the alternate short ending, or with some sort of critical disclaimer. It's more than 95% of all the extant texts we have. But that doesn't mean a lot when most of those are at least a millenium from the autographs. A raw percentage achieves little in these matters, for obvious reasons.



Fixed

Not fixed..."some" and those "some" seem to have lost the ability to reason in truth?.... even those who don't want to claim these scriptures as original ...somehow want to claim they are holy writ... because of all the evidence that it is...now that is an amazing lack of honest logic? I have my suspicions that this issue was not relevant until the recent outpouring of the Holy Spirit and this is nothing more than satans attempt to discredit these scriptures that are very strong in defending the truth of the Holy Spirit and His work.

 

[Nick01]

Not fixed..."some" and those "some" seem to have lost the ability to reason in truth?.... even those who don't want to claim these scriptures as original ...somehow want to claim they are holy writ... because of all the evidence that it is...now that is an amazing lack of honest logic? I have my suspicions that this issue was not relevant until the recent outpouring of the Holy Spirit and this is nothing more than satans attempt to discredit these scriptures that are very strong in defending the truth of the Holy Spirit and His work.

Well, I've laid out 'some' evidence, both as to the number of actual scholars (most of whom are evangelicals) who disagree with your position and the textual reasoning that lies behind the main consensus that 9-20 is not from the hand of Mark. You can actually engage with that. Or not. That's your own personal prerogative.

And, goes without saying that this has nothing to do with attacking the Holy Spirit and his work. That's stretching quite a long bow to say that, I reckon. Same as opining about your 'suspicions', because frankly that's all they are. Just the same as saying it was Satan's work to undermine the text of the NT by people inserting spurious parts into inspired Scripture. I'm sure you'd disagree with that, so I'm not sure why you find your own assertion convincing in the slightest.

I'm happy for you to engage with the particulars of my posts still, but if not, thanks for chatting.

 

[valiant]

Well, I've laid out 'some' evidence, both as to the number of actual scholars (most of whom are evangelicals) who disagree with your position and the textual reasoning that lies behind the main consensus that 9-20 is not from the hand of Mark.

I am not sure what evidence could prove that it is not from the hand of Mark. What is clear is that it was not the original ending when the initial copy of Mark reached the area responsible for the copying of Aleph and B. That may have been because the final ending had been torn off. On the other hand the present ending was clearly attached very early after the production of Mark for it is found in all other areas from which we have manuscripts. The textual evidence is very strong.

The question must then be whether Mark composed Mk 16.9 ff when the need for further information was put to him or whether it was done by a very early author who had access to genuine actual tradition about the words of Jesus. It has the simplicity characteristic of the Gospels and totally uncharacteristic of later so-called gospels.

 

[Nick01]

I am not sure what evidence could prove that it is not from the hand of Mark. What is clear is that it was not the original ending when the initial copy of Mark reached the area responsible for the copying of Aleph and B. That may have been because the final ending had been torn off. On the other hand the present ending was clearly attached very early after the production of Mark for it is found in all other areas from which we have manuscripts. The textual evidence is very strong.

The question must then be whether Mark composed Mk 16.9 ff when the need for further information was put to him or whether it was done by a very early author who had access to genuine actual tradition about the words of Jesus. It has the simplicity characteristic of the Gospels and totally uncharacteristic of later so-called gospels.

I certainly agree that it is a possibility that 19-20 was attached early (within a century). In fact, it's quite possible. The main problem, however, in believing that it was actually lost, and specifically in the most-likely-second-century exemplar that descends to Aleph and B, is the geographically and chronologically widespread nature of texts that end at v.8, or that include 9-20 with critical markings (for example, via the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome, plus the fact that the texts that omit after v.8, particularly Aleph and B, but also the versions, do not mark the end of the text to indicate doubt about the ending as they often do, for lost variants or missing leafs in the exemplar).

To think otherwise would, it seems to me, require we accept that if material after v.8 was 'lost', it happened with nary a peep from anyone, was not corrected by the author or those who made the earliest copies before said copies spread too far, and for some unknown reason, the original reading never asserted its superiority in contest (unless we assume Mark wrote 9-20, then we have the issue of why a tradition of Mark adding an 'extra' component to finish his gospel never accompanied the Long Ending, solving the issue for the likes of Eusebius, Jerome, and copyists who clearly knew of both the v.8 and v.20 endings). There are fathers who believed it was genuine, or believed it was not, or who simply don't mention that portion of Mark - there is ZERO testimony ANYWHERE in the fathers, versions of MSS that gives us any evidence at all it was a post-autographical but still Markan addition.

Minor variants in text that can only be detected by intensive reading are one thing, losing 12 verses (containing the most important component of the gospel message!) and not noticing until several generations, and not being able to correct it, is another. The possibility that the 'original ending' disappeared completely from the manuscript tradition would be unparalleled in textual criticism. If 9-20 is in fact the 'original ending', the above problems still apply. The variety of endings of Mark and the way they appear in the MSS seems most easily explainable by a desire to have an 'ending' that simply was never originally there. What was put in, however, was frequently viewed and marked directly or indirectly as doubtful, almost alone in the MSS tradition.

We can also go back and forth about whether 9-20 bears the characteristics of actual authentic testimony to the life of Jesus. But to me that seems somewhat beside the point if what we are interested in is what Mark originally wrote. It's certainly not characteristic of later gospels, you're quite correct, and it's certainly an important part of the textual history of Mark. I'm not sure, however, whether that genuinely means it should count as part of the text, especially if (as I mentioned above) it does not represent the authorial intent of Mark. Authorial style is perhaps also a subjective argument to have in the first place, but I'm happy to discuss it if you think it worthwhile .

 

[Mitspa]

Well, I've laid out 'some' evidence, both as to the number of actual scholars (most of whom are evangelicals) who disagree with your position and the textual reasoning that lies behind the main consensus that 9-20 is not from the hand of Mark. You can actually engage with that. Or not. That's your own personal prerogative.

And, goes without saying that this has nothing to do with attacking the Holy Spirit and his work. That's stretching quite a long bow to say that, I reckon. Same as opining about your 'suspicions', because frankly that's all they are. Just the same as saying it was Satan's work to undermine the text of the NT by people inserting spurious parts into inspired Scripture. I'm sure you'd disagree with that, so I'm not sure why you find your own assertion convincing in the slightest.

I'm happy for you to engage with the particulars of my posts still, but if not, thanks for chatting.

Of course satan would want to challenge these scriptures...because they speak to the clear evidence of the gifts of the Holy Spirit...and the term evangelical don't mean anything to me...many evangelicals deny the gifts of the Holy Spirit and would be glad to have these scriptures brought into question...so that they don't have to deal with the fact that they don't have what the bible says they should have.

 

[Mitspa]

I certainly agree that it is a possibility that 19-20 was attached early (within a century). In fact, it's quite possible. The main problem, however, in believing that it was actually lost, and specifically in the most-likely-second-century exemplar that descends to Aleph and B, is the geographically and chronologically widespread nature of texts that end at v.8, or that include 9-20 with critical markings (for example, via the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome, plus the fact that the texts that omit after v.8, particularly Aleph and B, but also the versions, do not mark the end of the text to indicate doubt about the ending as they often do, for lost variants or missing leafs in the exemplar).

To think otherwise would, it seems to me, require we accept that if material after v.8 was 'lost', it happened with nary a peep from anyone, was not corrected by the author or those who made the earliest copies before said copies spread too far, and for some unknown reason, the original reading never asserted its superiority in contest (unless we assume Mark wrote 9-20, then we have the issue of why a tradition of Mark adding an 'extra' component to finish his gospel never accompanied the Long Ending, solving the issue for the likes of Eusebius, Jerome, and copyists who clearly knew of both the v.8 and v.20 endings). There are fathers who believed it was genuine, or believed it was not, or who simply don't mention that portion of Mark - there is ZERO testimony ANYWHERE in the fathers, versions of MSS that gives us any evidence at all it was a post-autographical but still Markan addition.

Minor variants in text that can only be detected by intensive reading are one thing, losing 12 verses (containing the most important component of the gospel message!) and not noticing until several generations, and not being able to correct it, is another. The possibility that the 'original ending' disappeared completely from the manuscript tradition would be unparalleled in textual criticism. If 9-20 is in fact the 'original ending', the above problems still apply. The variety of endings of Mark and the way they appear in the MSS seems most easily explainable by a desire to have an 'ending' that simply was never originally there. What was put in, however, was frequently viewed and marked directly or indirectly as doubtful, almost alone in the MSS tradition.

We can also go back and forth about whether 9-20 bears the characteristics of actual authentic testimony to the life of Jesus. But to me that seems somewhat beside the point if what we are interested in is what Mark originally wrote. It's certainly not characteristic of later gospels, you're quite correct, and it's certainly an important part of the textual history of Mark. I'm not sure, however, whether that genuinely means it should count as part of the text, especially if (as I mentioned above) it does not represent the authorial intent of Mark. Authorial style is perhaps also a subjective argument to have in the first place, but I'm happy to discuss it if you think it worthwhile .

Lost to the early copies...not to the church in general...its clear that it was referenced as early as the 2nd century as being part of Marks account....and the whole notion of Authorial style is just silly and has no bearing on what is accepted as holy script...these same people would deny almost all of Pauls letters because they "don't think Paul wrote that way" its just silly and a work of satan to attack the truth of scripture by any sort of nonsense...at some point a believer has to accept by faith that God has preserved His Word and all the text bear witness to one another.

 

[Nick01]

So we're clear - 9-20 was referenced as early as Irenaeus as part of Mark's account. There is occasionally some argument about this but I'm prepared to accept as demonstrably historical that 9-20 (or at the very least v. 19, because that is what he cites) was in his copy of Mark.

But that's it.

No earlier father (such as Origen or Clement) refers to that section (which is an argument from silence, but neither is it proof of 9-20's originality), no extant manuscript earlier than A contains it, and fathers who predate A (Eusebius and Jerome, for e.g) explicitly discuss the issue, and say that the best/most accurate Greek manuscripts of Mark do not contain 9-20. Other fathers reference (without citation) things that have similarity to 9-20, but also could be referring to other NT texts, particularly Acts.

If we did not have Irenaeus, we would have no possible reason to think that 9-20 was anything more than a 3rd century addition. As things stand, it is most likely second century, but even then the evidence does not indicate by any means it was widespread or dominant enough that even though our extant MSS lack it, the wider church must have had it and there was some consensus to the extent it was genuine.

And no. Most of the people I listed before would defend, say, the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline, which is by no means a mainstream view in textual scholarship. The two things are not comparable.

I do agree, as I actually said in my original post, questions of style are often quite subjective, even though it can be helpful to analyse the text in that way. But I don't think one even needs to go that far to reach a conclusion 9-20 is secondary and likely non-Markan.

 

[Magenta]

Deliberate removal is also far from likely - why jettison the whole portion of text, a whole 12 verses, something unprecedented in the whole study of biblical textual criticism? Why jettison the resurrection from Mark entirely? If you had issues with certain parts (e.g. snake and poison), why not just redact those portions? Why lose the whole block of text and end at v.8, of all places?

Even without verses 9-20, the resurrection is still mentioned (v.6).

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomband they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”

 

[Mitspa]

So we're clear - 9-20 was referenced as early as Irenaeus as part of Mark's account. There is occasionally some argument about this but I'm prepared to accept as demonstrably historical that 9-20 (or at the very least v. 19, because that is what he cites) was in his copy of Mark.

But that's it.

No earlier father (such as Origen or Clement) refers to that section (which is an argument from silence, but neither is it proof of 9-20's originality), no extant manuscript earlier than A contains it, and fathers who predate A (Eusebius and Jerome, for e.g) explicitly discuss the issue, and say that the best/most accurate Greek manuscripts of Mark do not contain 9-20. Other fathers reference (without citation) things that have similarity to 9-20, but also could be referring to other NT texts, particularly Acts.

If we did not have Irenaeus, we would have no possible reason to think that 9-20 was anything more than a 3rd century addition. As things stand, it is most likely second century, but even then the evidence does not indicate by any means it was widespread or dominant enough that even though our extant MSS lack it, the wider church must have had it and there was some consensus to the extent it was genuine.

And no. Most of the people I listed before would defend, say, the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline, which is by no means a mainstream view in textual scholarship. The two things are not comparable.

I do agree, as I actually said in my original post, questions of style are often quite subjective, even though it can be helpful to analyse the text in that way. But I don't think one even needs to go that far to reach a conclusion 9-20 is secondary and likely non-Markan.

So what? its a clear and evident reference to these passages in the 2nd century ...and all these other lines of text (the majority) record these passages...to me this is a no-brainer. Only someone who wants to question these passages for some reason? would do so.

True.. the two early copies have a very strange hole in them, but anyone with half a brain can see the passages are not complete (for some reason) but all copies have some issues and when one looks at all the evidence..its clear that these are the intended words of God. ( even those that question its original position in the text have to admit this)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

you see this is how you 'literalists' force the Scriptures to say what they don't. He did not say that it would happen to all who believed. He merely said that examples of it would occur as signs. You read into Scripture what you want. The problem is you live in a dream world.

There is no reason for doubting that these were genuine words of Jesus.

This is the problem with non literalists.

You can make scripture say anything you want it to and no one can argue (so you think)

There is plenty to doubt.

1. Jesus never mentions baptism as a requirement to be saved
2. He states all who believe in him will be known as they will be bitten by snake and not die, drink poison and not die. they will heal whoever they lay hands on (which was not even true when Jesus walked the earth)

 

[Mitspa]

This is the problem with non literalists.

You can make scripture say anything you want it to and no one can argue (so you think)

There is plenty to doubt.

1. Jesus never mentions baptism as a requirement to be saved
2. He states all who believe in him will be known as they will be bitten by snake and not die, drink poison and not die. they will heal whoever they lay hands on (which was not even true when Jesus walked the earth)

Yea if you don't want to obey baptism or don't have the real power of God ...its better for you if these scriptures can be taken out of the way.... That's exactly why these scriptures are being challenged...not because they are any real question about their position as Holy Writ...but because some think its questions their faith.

 

[valiant]

So we're clear - 9-20 was referenced as early as Irenaeus as part of Mark's account. There is occasionally some argument about this but I'm prepared to accept as demonstrably historical that 9-20 (or at the very least v. 19, because that is what he cites) was in his copy of Mark.

But that's it.

This is not strictly correct for Mark's ending is also borne witness to by Tatian's inclusion of parts of it in the Diatessaron around 160-175 AD..

No earlier father (such as Origen or Clement)

Earlier than whom? Certainly not earlier than Tatian and Irenaeus.

refers to that section (which is an argument from silence, but neither is it proof of 9-20's originality), no extant manuscript earlier than A contains it,

In view of the paucity of manuscripts not a very strong argument?

and fathers who predate A (Eusebius and Jerome, for e.g) explicitly discuss the issue, and say that the best/most accurate Greek manuscripts of Mark do not contain 9-20.

As Alpha and B, which do not include it, were probably from the same area as Eusebius this is simply evidence of its lack in one particular area. But it was included in A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, and was therefore clearly of widespread acceptance and the combined evidence makes clear that in those areas it had early acceptance.

I am not convinced that the opinion of Eusebius and Jerome as to which were 'the best manuscripts' is reliable. But their very statements show that they both knew of numerous manuscripts which DID include it. They are therefore a further witness of its early inclusion.

If we did not have Irenaeus, we would have no possible reason to think that 9-20 was anything more than a 3rd century addition.

Combined with Tatian's testimony, and no voices against, this is pretty strong evidence.

As things stand, it is most likely second century, but even then the evidence does not indicate by any means it was widespread or dominant enough that even though our extant MSS lack it, the wider church must have had it and there was some consensus to the extent it was genuine.

I rather feel that you underestimate the evidence that we do have To me it suggests that its use was widespread and fairly dominant.

 

[Mitspa]

Of course it is clear these passages are Gods intended Word....the only problem is that some folks don't like what they say .

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant

you see this is how you 'literalists' force the Scriptures to say what they don't. He did not say that it would happen to all who believed. He merely said that examples of it would occur as signs. You read into Scripture what you want. The problem is you live in a dream world.

There is no reason for doubting that these were genuine words of Jesus.

This is the problem with non literalists.

You can make scripture say anything you want it to and no one can argue (so you think)

LOL 'literalist' is a name taken by arrogant people who think only their interpretation is right. I am literalist in the true sense of the word, but being aware of when literalism leads to error. You equally say anything you want, and then claim it is 'literal' when everyone but you knows it is not.

There is plenty to doubt.

1. Jesus never mentions baptism as a requirement to be saved

or does He in Mark 16. The emphasis is on believing. Are you suggesting that they should not be baptised when they believed?

2. He states all who believe in him will be known as they will be bitten by snake and not die, drink poison and not die. they will heal whoever they lay hands on (which was not even true when Jesus walked the earth)

See what I mean?. This is not what it literally says. It is what you with your false interpretation make it say.

It simply says, 'these signs shall follow those who believe'. In other words such things would happen wherever there were believers. And they did. It does NOT say that all who believe will experience all these things. That is your misrepresentation.

 

[Nick01]

Hi Valiant. Thank you for your considered and polite reply.

This is not strictly correct for Mark's ending is also borne witness to by Tatian's inclusion of parts of it in the Diatessaron around 160-175 AD..

I haven't studied the state of Diatesseron textual criticism, but I am aware that large sections of the text only survive to us in Arabic, those portions are late, and I understand (though could be wrong) that the section referring to 9-20 is one such section (falling right at the end of the Diatesseron after the other gospel ending material). If the extant text was conformed to, say, the Syriac Peshitta (and this has happened with other liturgical sources and late MSS of patristic writings), then it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. I'm not 100% sure, but I also think between Irenaeus and Tatian, we still have a fairly limited geographical sourcing for the acceptance of 9-20 in Asia Minor until a couple of centuries later. Feel free to come back to me if you know more on this topic than me.

Anyway, even if I accept Tatian's witness to the text unequivocally, that still only gives us ten more years over Irenaeus, who I feel is a much more certain witness on this matter anyway. That still leaves enough a window that is still too large to deal with sufficiently with the other external evidence calling 9-20 into question, and the general likelihood of omission vs addition in this case.

Earlier than whom? Certainly not earlier than Tatian and Irenaeus.

Yep.

In view of the paucity of manuscripts not a very strong argument?

As always, MSS need to be weighted rather than counted. Raw numerical weighting doesn't necessarily help us work out which reading is original. We have two MSS earlier than A that do not have 9-20, as well as several earlier VSS. Even then, there are later MSS that, while not expressely proving a v.8 ending, certainly call into question 9-20. When the total available manuscript evidence before the 5th century is sparse regardless of what part of Scripture you're talking about, you have to make use of what you have.

As Alpha and B, which do not include it, were probably from the same area as Eusebius this is simply evidence of its lack in one particular area. But it was included in A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, and was therefore clearly of widespread acceptance and the combined evidence makes clear that in those areas it had early acceptance.

No one really has strong evidence for where Aleph and B came from (origins of Alpeh have ranged from Palestine, to Egypt, to Rome, to Constantinople), but surely the question of how 9-20 became so lost in a particular area (if that is indeed what happened) is itself a question of interest. Then, of course, there is still Jerome, the variety of versions in different ethnic languages and locales, and other Greek MSS that show doubt about the correct ending to consider in any geographical argument.

Also worth pointing out that the f1 set (12th century) includes a text critical introduction stating some copies do not contain the ending, although many others do (this is the better part of a millenium after Jerome and Eusebius). W (4th century) adds the Freer Logion in the middle of 9-20. While we can find evidence for 9-20 over a variety of areas after a certain period of time, likewise we can find doubt about that specific portion of text over a similar area. But the text up until v.8 is never in question, and always included.

I am not convinced that the opinion of Eusebius and Jerome as to which were 'the best manuscripts' is reliable. But their very statements show that they both knew of numerous manuscripts which DID include it. They are therefore a further witness of its early inclusion.

If you have a reason for suspecting their reliability, feel free to offer it. The salient point, however, is that they seem to demonstrate an awareness of a significant split in the MSS in this section of the text. Even if we don't accept their opinions about which ending is genuine, that is still a point worth noting (their testimony also squares with extant MSS that demonstrate doubt as to the correct ending of Mark, especially those marked with text critical marks or that contain multiple endings). At that point, we turn back to the text critical analysis: there can be little doubt that either the ending was added or excised, so what set of circumstances makes either more probable, on the basis of the extant evidence?

As for evidence of an early inclusion, certainly, they are both witnesses to its inclusion, but no earlier than we have already accepted via Irenaeus and analysis of the extant MSS/VSS.

Combined with Tatian's testimony, and no voices against, this is pretty strong evidence.

If v.8 was where it originally ended, and it took generations for 9-20 to arise in the text as viable, we would not expect such evidence. There's no need to defend a reading if an alternate reading doesn't exist or is not viable. You would only expect 'voices against' if you had two readings that were in clear competition, and a judgement needed to be made, which is exactly what you get with Jerome and Eusebius. They are the first Fathers to note a textual problem at this point

I rather feel that you underestimate the evidence that we do have To me it suggests that its use was widespread and fairly dominant.

Certainly, it became widespread and dominant. That's somewhat different to saying its original, though, or that it was even dominant in the early century, or perhaps centuries. I'm not sure relying on Irenaeus and Tatian for that evidence is sufficient to establish that kind of dominance of the reading.

 

[Mitspa]

Again even those scholars who claim they have some reason to doubt its original to mark admit the evidence is overwhelming as to its position as holy writ....now how they come up with that sort of logic is rather amazing to me...it seems its more that they don't like what says and have to have some way to challenge it without really challenging it...the more some men think themselves educated in religion the farther from God they seem to grow.