-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I totally question this longer ending of Mark. If there is an ending to Mark, it was lost in antiquity, and I assume God wanted it that way. Perhaps being at the end of a scroll, the ending fell into tatters, and was not copied before the original manuscript was lost.
Suffice it to say that both the historical and textual evidence point to the fact that both the longer (the used in the OP) and the shorter ending are simply not the words of Mark.
Historically, we can look at the manuscript evidence. The extant manscripts date from 135 AD at the earliest to about 1200 AD for the latest. There are 5000 copies of the New Testament, which range fromm scraps and pieces (Rylands papyrus of John, for example) to complete manuscripts. These texts show remarkable agreement among themselves. The most notorious exception to this happy rule is the ending of Mark.
The oldest and most important manuscripts of the Bible, codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus omit verses 9-20, as do several early translations or versions, including Old Latin, the Sinanitic Syriac, about 100 Armenian manuscripts and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts.
Neither Clement of Alexandria nor Origen shows any awareness of the longer ending, and Eusebius and Jerome attest that vv 9-20 were absent from the majority of Greek texts. Although there are a few manscripts which do include this ending, attesting to the fact that it was added quite early and included in subsequent copies of Mark, even those copies include scribal notes or various markings indicating that the ending is regarded as a spurious addition to the gospel.
Thus, external evidence (manuscript witnesses) argue strongly against the originality of the longer ending.
Literary or textual criticism also points to the ending not being original. The text changes abruptly from the fear of the women, to "Lord Jesus" a term not used by Mark, who calls Jesus by his given name in the rest of the book. Such reverential nomenclature likely derives from later Christian worship.
Particularly noticable is the newcomer introduced in this ending, as well as the words that appear nowhere else in Mark. In the shorter ending, nine of the thirty-four words are new. In the longer ending there are an additional 18 words that do not otherwise appear in Mark, plus several unique word forms, and syntactical constructions.
Several of Mark's signature stylistc features are absent in the longer ending. Most notably, the absence of the initial Greek "kai" (and also, even) in Mark's sentence structure and the absence of the historic present tense of verbs and the absence of the word "euthys" (immediately, forthwith).
Greek Concordance: εὐθὺς (euthys) -- 51 Occurrences
Finally, the longer ending also includes themes peculiar to itself, some of which contradict Markan themes. For example, the repeated chastisement of the disciples for their "unbelief" of the gospel proclamation, is unique to the longer ending, and the prominence given to charismatic signs in vv 17-18 stands in stark contrast to the reserve of Jesus in Mark with regard to sign and sensation (see 8:11-13)
"11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him.12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13 And he left them, got into the boat again, and went to the other side." Mark 8:11-13
External and internal evidence gives the conclusion that 16:9-20 is not the original ending of Mark but rather a later addition to the gospel. The longer ending is old, perhaps dating to the end of the second century, but it is not the original and should NOT be used for doctrine, or forming a church (eg: The Shakers!)
Suffice it to say that both the historical and textual evidence point to the fact that both the longer (the used in the OP) and the shorter ending are simply not the words of Mark.
Historically, we can look at the manuscript evidence. The extant manscripts date from 135 AD at the earliest to about 1200 AD for the latest. There are 5000 copies of the New Testament, which range fromm scraps and pieces (Rylands papyrus of John, for example) to complete manuscripts. These texts show remarkable agreement among themselves. The most notorious exception to this happy rule is the ending of Mark.
The oldest and most important manuscripts of the Bible, codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus omit verses 9-20, as do several early translations or versions, including Old Latin, the Sinanitic Syriac, about 100 Armenian manuscripts and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts.
Neither Clement of Alexandria nor Origen shows any awareness of the longer ending, and Eusebius and Jerome attest that vv 9-20 were absent from the majority of Greek texts. Although there are a few manscripts which do include this ending, attesting to the fact that it was added quite early and included in subsequent copies of Mark, even those copies include scribal notes or various markings indicating that the ending is regarded as a spurious addition to the gospel.
Thus, external evidence (manuscript witnesses) argue strongly against the originality of the longer ending.
Literary or textual criticism also points to the ending not being original. The text changes abruptly from the fear of the women, to "Lord Jesus" a term not used by Mark, who calls Jesus by his given name in the rest of the book. Such reverential nomenclature likely derives from later Christian worship.
Particularly noticable is the newcomer introduced in this ending, as well as the words that appear nowhere else in Mark. In the shorter ending, nine of the thirty-four words are new. In the longer ending there are an additional 18 words that do not otherwise appear in Mark, plus several unique word forms, and syntactical constructions.
Several of Mark's signature stylistc features are absent in the longer ending. Most notably, the absence of the initial Greek "kai" (and also, even) in Mark's sentence structure and the absence of the historic present tense of verbs and the absence of the word "euthys" (immediately, forthwith).
Greek Concordance: εὐθὺς (euthys) -- 51 Occurrences
Finally, the longer ending also includes themes peculiar to itself, some of which contradict Markan themes. For example, the repeated chastisement of the disciples for their "unbelief" of the gospel proclamation, is unique to the longer ending, and the prominence given to charismatic signs in vv 17-18 stands in stark contrast to the reserve of Jesus in Mark with regard to sign and sensation (see 8:11-13)
"11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him.12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13 And he left them, got into the boat again, and went to the other side." Mark 8:11-13
External and internal evidence gives the conclusion that 16:9-20 is not the original ending of Mark but rather a later addition to the gospel. The longer ending is old, perhaps dating to the end of the second century, but it is not the original and should NOT be used for doctrine, or forming a church (eg: The Shakers!)
A couple of things ember....
1. No I didn't get up on the wrong side of the bed
2. I am not a tongue hater but a realist who believes the word of God and the word cease as applied unto tongues and the immaturity that is applied unto those who think they need tongues...and my smile points to the fact I was in a jovial mood when I made the statement which I made to nothing more than your OPINION
3. Lighten up and don't be so easily offended
1. No I didn't get up on the wrong side of the bed
2. I am not a tongue hater but a realist who believes the word of God and the word cease as applied unto tongues and the immaturity that is applied unto those who think they need tongues...and my smile points to the fact I was in a jovial mood when I made the statement which I made to nothing more than your OPINION
3. Lighten up and don't be so easily offended
E
We don't because you do it without understanding or acknowledging what scripture states
The Bible says that 2 or 3 should speak and it should be interpreted ...very simple. If that order is not kept, then whatever is done is incorrect.
There are plenty of people faking it...fake interpretations etc...just like the churches are rather stuffed with fake Christians who put on a godly appearance but deny the power of God
You don't have to speak in tongues to be saved, but mocking what you don't understand indicates a problem too IMO
I'm not saying you are mocking, but I have seen that in another thread a day or so ago
For some reason, threads on tongues are popping up like mushrooms
G
Why haven't you heard this twist before?
Isa 28~~11Indeed, He will speak to this people Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue, 12He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,”
And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen. 13So the word of the LORD to them will be,
“Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there,”
That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.
Judah Is Warned
14Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers,
Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 Cor 14:21~~English Standard VersionIn the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people(Israel/Jews), and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”
In 70 AD Jerusalem fell and Israel was dispersed as a nation. The biblical sign of tongues ceased when God administered his final round of discipline on Judah.
Isa 28~~11Indeed, He will speak to this people Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue, 12He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,”
And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen. 13So the word of the LORD to them will be,
“Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there,”
That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.
Judah Is Warned
14Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers,
Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 Cor 14:21~~English Standard VersionIn the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people(Israel/Jews), and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”
In 70 AD Jerusalem fell and Israel was dispersed as a nation. The biblical sign of tongues ceased when God administered his final round of discipline on Judah.
You said
So you added paul was sick and thats why you are claiming he needed to be healed.
Its not a complaint, just pointing out, wrong teaching. And sharing the truth with you and any others.
Once again you are adding something I never said. You need to learn to quote people properly. it would save a lot of confusion.
You said
in regard to Pauls healing or denial of Pauls healing.
So you tell me what that plan was?
Yes Paul pleaded but Paul never pleaded for healing its not in there anywhere.
Yes it was in there when you claimed Paul was sick. He was not.
Really you class "believe" and "will power the same? I dont so please dont cross ref them when quoting me.
So you added paul was sick and thats why you are claiming he needed to be healed.
Its not a complaint, just pointing out, wrong teaching. And sharing the truth with you and any others.
Once again you are adding something I never said. You need to learn to quote people properly. it would save a lot of confusion.
You said
in regard to Pauls healing or denial of Pauls healing.
So you tell me what that plan was?
Yes Paul pleaded but Paul never pleaded for healing its not in there anywhere.
Yes it was in there when you claimed Paul was sick. He was not.
Really you class "believe" and "will power the same? I dont so please dont cross ref them when quoting me.
E
Listen...I have exchanged other posts with you wherein everything was hunky dory...but, when this subject comes up, you go all shoot first and ask questions later
I think we both know you were rather short in your post to me
Telling someone to keep their opinions to themself and use scripture if you are going to flap lips might be ok in yr neck of the woods? But where I come from, that's just plain rude
I might be more of a realist then you are...you don't know me at all...and please don't give me the smiley excuse...so a person can address someone any ole way they want as long as they attach a smiley?
These threads on tongues are like the threads on OSAS and the sinless crowd...they just go on and on and are not really very nice to participate in
BTW? I'll give my opinion any time I want...just like you....
I'm not angry at you, but I'm not going to argue with you about it either...these threads do not have a good reception to either side IMO
I think we both know you were rather short in your post to me
Telling someone to keep their opinions to themself and use scripture if you are going to flap lips might be ok in yr neck of the woods? But where I come from, that's just plain rude
I might be more of a realist then you are...you don't know me at all...and please don't give me the smiley excuse...so a person can address someone any ole way they want as long as they attach a smiley?
These threads on tongues are like the threads on OSAS and the sinless crowd...they just go on and on and are not really very nice to participate in
BTW? I'll give my opinion any time I want...just like you....
I'm not angry at you, but I'm not going to argue with you about it either...these threads do not have a good reception to either side IMO
Listen...I have exchanged other posts with you wherein everything was hunky dory...but, when this subject comes up, you go all shoot first and ask questions later
I think we both know you were rather short in your post to me
Telling someone to keep their opinions to themself and use scripture if you are going to flap lips might be ok in yr neck of the woods? But where I come from, that's just plain rude
I might be more of a realist then you are...you don't know me at all...and please don't give me the smiley excuse...so a person can address someone any ole way they want as long as they attach a smiley?
These threads on tongues are like the threads on OSAS and the sinless crowd...they just go on and on and are not really very nice to participate in
BTW? I'll give my opinion any time I want...just like you....
I'm not angry at you, but I'm not going to argue with you about it either...these threads do not have a good reception to either side IMO
I think we both know you were rather short in your post to me
Telling someone to keep their opinions to themself and use scripture if you are going to flap lips might be ok in yr neck of the woods? But where I come from, that's just plain rude
I might be more of a realist then you are...you don't know me at all...and please don't give me the smiley excuse...so a person can address someone any ole way they want as long as they attach a smiley?
These threads on tongues are like the threads on OSAS and the sinless crowd...they just go on and on and are not really very nice to participate in
BTW? I'll give my opinion any time I want...just like you....
I'm not angry at you, but I'm not going to argue with you about it either...these threads do not have a good reception to either side IMO
G
Yes. But Israel is not furthering the Gospel of Jesus Christ as a nation. Israel before 70 AD was Gods Client nation to advance the Gospel. Tongues were a sign to the Jew that God was going to administer His 5th cycle of discipline on His client nation and they were going to lose their client nation status.
When Israel lost their client nation status............the sign of tongues(Their own language spoken to them by someone they KNEW didn't have that ability) ceased to "this people."
When Israel lost their client nation status............the sign of tongues(Their own language spoken to them by someone they KNEW didn't have that ability) ceased to "this people."
I
According to modern scholarship Sinaiticus Aleph and Vitcanus B do not agree with the Majority of manuscripts. Not only do they disagree with the Majority of manuscripts, they do not agree with each other.
The 8,000 changes in B and the 9,000 changes in Aleph are not the same changes. When their changes are added together, they alter the Majority text in 13,000 places, This is two changes for every verse. Together they omit 4,000 words, and add 2,000, transpose 3,500, and modify 2000.
There are 88 Greek papyri Manuscripts. Most papyri consist of small fragments and do not have much text. Of the 88, only an estimated thirteen (15%) support B and Aleph which support the new radical texts. From a span from 1550 to 1624 Elzevir differed from Stephens in Mark only 19 times. B differs with Aleph 652 times in the Gospel of Mark, and with another uncial Manuscript (D) in 1,944 places. There is only a total of 287 variants from Stephen's 1550 work to the Elzevir brothers' work of 1624. These differences are almot negligible because they are all spelling. The issue is whether you spell "colour" or "color".
Vaticanus B leaves out the Book of Revelation "Mystery Babylon the Great", "the seven heads are seven mountains upon which the woman (harlot) sits", "the woman is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth" What organized religious group would like to have such telling passages left out?
Hoskier detalied and discussed the error in Codex Aleph, Sinciticus Aleph and Vaitcanus B and found they differed in the Gospels alone 3,036 times, not including minor errors such as spelling or synonym departures.
(Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, A study and an Indictment, 2 Vols., London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1914, Vol. II, p, 1.)
And these are "the best and most reliable"?
Feed: The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark by John William Burgon
You can read the book on line.
The 8,000 changes in B and the 9,000 changes in Aleph are not the same changes. When their changes are added together, they alter the Majority text in 13,000 places, This is two changes for every verse. Together they omit 4,000 words, and add 2,000, transpose 3,500, and modify 2000.
There are 88 Greek papyri Manuscripts. Most papyri consist of small fragments and do not have much text. Of the 88, only an estimated thirteen (15%) support B and Aleph which support the new radical texts. From a span from 1550 to 1624 Elzevir differed from Stephens in Mark only 19 times. B differs with Aleph 652 times in the Gospel of Mark, and with another uncial Manuscript (D) in 1,944 places. There is only a total of 287 variants from Stephen's 1550 work to the Elzevir brothers' work of 1624. These differences are almot negligible because they are all spelling. The issue is whether you spell "colour" or "color".
Vaticanus B leaves out the Book of Revelation "Mystery Babylon the Great", "the seven heads are seven mountains upon which the woman (harlot) sits", "the woman is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth" What organized religious group would like to have such telling passages left out?
Hoskier detalied and discussed the error in Codex Aleph, Sinciticus Aleph and Vaitcanus B and found they differed in the Gospels alone 3,036 times, not including minor errors such as spelling or synonym departures.
(Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, A study and an Indictment, 2 Vols., London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1914, Vol. II, p, 1.)
And these are "the best and most reliable"?
Feed: The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark by John William Burgon
You can read the book on line.
The so-called "majority texts" or Textus Receptus are later texts which were written in Greek and embellished by the scribes in many verses. They are not considered reliable by true scholars. Whereas the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are much earlier and agree with the other early manuscripts.
The only reason the Byzantium manuscripts are the "majority" is because the east kept the Greek language, and the scribes continued to copy (and add to!) those manuscripts.
KJV people always cite these spurious texts and claim the variants are major in the earliest texts, when in fact the differences are neglible. It is only the later manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20, which so clearly states that it was written long after the autographs and added to the text. There was nothing more exciting to a Byzantium scribe than adding a few words of explanation in the margin, which sadly were added to later texts. The Greek scribes did not adhere to the strict rules the Hebrew scribes did in order to preserve the Word of God. That is why the earlier texts are more reliable, because they have not been altered and changed the way the later Greek manuscripts were.
Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?
The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)
E
That would break the back of a pretzel
The Holy Spirit descended upon the believers gathered in the upper room and they began to speak in other tongues...I don't think they were waiting for that...there also appeared a physical phenomena over their heads...like tongues of fire
The crowd below heard words in their own language and the passage is not more detailed than that. However, thousands were saved that day
Do I really have to post all the teaching Paul does concerning the use of tongues in both church AND in private?
To those who state that Paul said he would rather just speak a few words and be understood than speak many in tongues and not be understood, do you also take into account that he said he prayed in tongues more than anyone? Because you cannot just pick out what seems to suit what you might consider a proof text that tongues has ceased or blend in some interesting OT scriptures that have nothing to do with what Paul instructs the churches regarding the use of tongues
I hope you can avoid being offended here...but let me just be myself without the candy wrapper of Christian forum politeness...this sounds like gobbledegook and makes no sense and I am not a stupid person and it is not over my head. It makes no sense to me because it makes no sense and has a blend of verses from both testaments with a shake of interpretation that does not follow in a logical or spititual sequence.
If it were not for Jews we would know nothing of Christ. Who were the Apostles?
Client nation and 5th cycle of discipline on his client nation. Is this a Baptist thing or what?
The Holy Spirit descended upon the believers gathered in the upper room and they began to speak in other tongues...I don't think they were waiting for that...there also appeared a physical phenomena over their heads...like tongues of fire
The crowd below heard words in their own language and the passage is not more detailed than that. However, thousands were saved that day
Do I really have to post all the teaching Paul does concerning the use of tongues in both church AND in private?
To those who state that Paul said he would rather just speak a few words and be understood than speak many in tongues and not be understood, do you also take into account that he said he prayed in tongues more than anyone? Because you cannot just pick out what seems to suit what you might consider a proof text that tongues has ceased or blend in some interesting OT scriptures that have nothing to do with what Paul instructs the churches regarding the use of tongues
I hope you can avoid being offended here...but let me just be myself without the candy wrapper of Christian forum politeness...this sounds like gobbledegook and makes no sense and I am not a stupid person and it is not over my head. It makes no sense to me because it makes no sense and has a blend of verses from both testaments with a shake of interpretation that does not follow in a logical or spititual sequence.
If it were not for Jews we would know nothing of Christ. Who were the Apostles?
Client nation and 5th cycle of discipline on his client nation. Is this a Baptist thing or what?
What I am implying is NOT in the text? For we know in part - we don't know it all even with the scripture that has been provided . . . For now we see through a glass darkly - all things are not clearly understood for I only see part but when that which is perfect is come and I see him face to face then I will know - absolutely know even as I am known (no one knows me as he does) then I can put away childish things for I will have no need for them but until then I will edify and build up the gift he has given me.
I am a mature Christian but compared to Christ I am but a child in understanding.
I am a mature Christian but compared to Christ I am but a child in understanding.
Doesn't matter what your opinion of me is . . . I'm sure you know the huge differences and separation between men and women in the Middle East and we do have to understand the culture of the times.
God doesn't see me as a "woman" but he sees me as a member in the body of Christ. But then again you pulled the "woman" thing out in relationship to speaking in tongues . . . I also believe in the specific context of the subject, it says: . . . v34b . . . but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law - I don't believe that I am under the law. I also think that scripture says - Forbid not to speak in tongues.
God doesn't see me as a "woman" but he sees me as a member in the body of Christ. But then again you pulled the "woman" thing out in relationship to speaking in tongues . . . I also believe in the specific context of the subject, it says: . . . v34b . . . but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law - I don't believe that I am under the law. I also think that scripture says - Forbid not to speak in tongues.