# Mark 16:9-20



## WrittenFromUtopia

Well, this is my first post here, so &quot;Hello&quot; to everyone!

I was wondering what people here thought about Mark 16:9-20 and whether or not it was a later edition that doesn't belong in our canon, or what you think the history of how that passage got in the Bible is?

Here's the passage in the ESV Bible:

[b:7faa7ab718]9&nbsp;[[Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10&nbsp;She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11&nbsp;But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.

12&nbsp;After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. 13&nbsp;And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.

14&nbsp;Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. 15&nbsp;And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16&nbsp;Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17&nbsp;And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18&nbsp;they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

19&nbsp;So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 20&nbsp;And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.]] [/b:7faa7ab718]

And, now here's the ESV footnotes on this passage:

[b:7faa7ab718][1] 16:9 Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14; one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20[/b:7faa7ab718]

Well, what have you guys heard or studied about this passage? :book:


----------



## Scot

Personally, I do believe that these versus belong there. I think people have a hard time with the &quot;signs that follow them that believe.&quot; Here's how I believe that we can look at these passages.

&quot;cast out devils&quot; - When believers share the gospel, those who are saved are taken from Satan's kingdom. He no longer has power over them. He has been cast out. 

&quot;speak with new tongues&quot; - The language spoken by the unsaved (regardless of political language) is that of the dominion of Satan. The language of the believer is that of the kingdom of God. When someone becomes saved, they are in a different kingdom. Thus they speak, think and act differently (Psalm 40:3, 98:1) 

&quot;take up serpents&quot; - The serpent usually represents Satan (Rev. 12:9). When people become saved, Satan no longer has rule over them. 

&quot;drink any deadly thing&quot; - When we become saved, we drank the pure water of the gospel. To listen to a false gospel is like drinking poison (Deut. 32:32,33). If a true believer hears a false gospel, it will not hurt him because he is eternally secure. 

&quot;lay hands on the sick&quot; - When believers share the gospel, they are ministering to the spiritually ill. The gospel applied by the Holy Spirit by means of witnessing of believers, brings spiritual healing (1Peter 2:24b). 

When we look at the versus in this way, they fit with the rest of scripture.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I think, despite being able to explain them properly, the evidence seems to point to them not being inspired.

A Greek scholar told me that the current consensus among many people is that the original Mark scroll was probably damaged by water or in a fire (the outer layer of it was ruined that contained the end of Mark) and so at some point an ending was added to it to make it flow better (because the ending was awkward without it). I'm not sure.

I don't think we should be afraid to think it doesn't belong, though.. it's a matter of textual criticism, not the inerrancy of Scripture (especially if it isn't Scripture).


----------



## Authorised

I think the transcribers of the TR were more faithful to the word of God than those who transcribed through what's called the Alexandrian line. There's a lot of good evidence out there to suggest that the ending to Mark, Christ and the Adultrous woman, and the Johannine Comma are legitimate portions of the Canon. I do know that John Calvin and Matthew Henry both believed in the veracity of I John 5:7, perhaps the passage most hotly debated.

James White wrote a book about this, except he characterizes the entire &quot;King James Only&quot; (a misnomer) movement as solely comprised of people who believe the KJV is inspired. For the most part, the book really wasn't that edifying, or convincing for that matter. 
But there are some within Reformed camps who believe the textus receptus, the foundation for the KJV translation, is an accurate reflection of God's word, such as Ian Paisley and the Free Pres. denomination, etc. 

Anyway, there are a lot of good books out there that explain this better than I could do. Perhaps start there.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:ea057c6ee9][i:ea057c6ee9]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:ea057c6ee9]
I don't have a problem theologically explaining them, but doesn't their absence from the earliest manuscripts cause you to pause? [/quote:ea057c6ee9]

No. Not when the &quot;earliest manuscripts&quot; are several hundred years old, come from a Vatican garbage can (literally) and are contradicted by the vast majority of extant manuscripts.


----------



## Authorised

Oh yeah, I would not recommend anything by Gail Riplinger, Texe Marrs, or Peter Ruckman. These idiots believe the KJV was actually inspired in 1611 and that all new Bible versions are of Satan.

[Edited on (7/8/04) by Authorised]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Wouldn't the fact that the manuscripts are older (earlier) make them more valuable than newer ones?


----------



## Scot

[quote:1761f003af]
I don't have a problem theologically explaining them, but doesn't their absence from the earliest manuscripts cause you to pause?
[/quote:1761f003af]

Yeah, I guess so, but how do we know that the earlier manuscripts weren't tampered with? I mean those versus just seem too harmonious to me not to be inspired. 

When we look at obvious books like the apocrypha, it's easy to see that those do not harmonize with the rest of scripture and cannot be inspired.

I don't claim to be a scholar or anything. I guess I just have a hard time believing that God would leave those passages in our translation for so long if they weren't supposed to be there.

Just my :wr50:


----------



## Authorised

No. Despite the fact they are older (4th century) there's a lot of reasons to be suspicious. The main manuscripts in this line are codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 

Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in the 15th century, and Sinaiticus was a manuscript literally found in a monastery's trash bin (waiting to be burned) when Tischendorf took it in the 19th century. 

The reason the TR manuscripts aren't AS old is that they were used and used, copied and re-copied. Literally it was the &quot;received text&quot; by the church up until the 19th century when liberal scholars and theologians began to rethink textual criticism.


[Edited on (7/8/04) by Authorised]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

[quote:c172690d4f][i:c172690d4f]Originally posted by Scot[/i:c172690d4f]
Yeah, I guess so, but how do we know that the earlier manuscripts weren't tampered with?[/quote:c172690d4f]

Wouldn't it be harder to assume that a much younger manuscript wasn't tampered with (like the Textus Receptus)??

I'd be inclined to trust a 3rd or 4th century document over a 10th century one any day of the week!


----------



## Authorised

But not when that manuscript was sitting in the Pope's library for all that time. Was the Bible in the hands of the churches, or was it in Rome?

Also, you might have to take my word on this one, but as archaeologists unearth more 1st century papyrii (a little more than 100 now), they've been finding that the scripture written on those papyrii by and large agree with the TR


----------



## Authorised

quote:
one needs proof for a claim like this.


Yes, but which side has the burden of proof? Both are making claims.


----------



## Authorised

Matthew Henry's commentary on I John 5:7 is what sealed it for me...might take a look at his opinion, it sure has a lot more weight than mine.

http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC62005.HTM

and John Calvin's:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.v.vi.ii.html



[Edited on (7/8/04) by Authorised]


----------



## Authorised

I think it is far more likely for a verse asserting the trinity to be taken out rather than added in, considering the large amount of heresy we find present in the 4th century.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I side with Fred and others who incline toward the Byzantine text type. (I define my position as favoring a Majority Text position (MT) as opposed to the strictly Received Text (TR) position, because the same science that was used to produce the TR has not stood still since Erasmus.) For that reason, I think the weight of evidence favors including both Mark 16 and John 8 passages. 

My support for them is not blind. And I am open to arguments that favor a reconsideration of this or that reading of a given passage based on Alexandrine or other evidence (Latin, for example). My primary reason for supporting the Byz. is doctrinal. [i:e551a2acf4][b:e551a2acf4]If the doctrine of preservation means anything, it means that God's Word was preserved for his people's use.[/b:e551a2acf4][/i:e551a2acf4] It may have been neglected in the West by the time of the late middle ages, but it was not, it could not have been preserved most acurately nowhere but in the sands of Egypt, of benefit to no one. This, to me, is theological nonsense.

As for the &quot;older, therefore superior&quot; argument, it is logically weak. Even if it is demonstrably true that the accumulation of human error and carelessnes and deliberate forgery weaken our confidence in every other human writing dating back to ancient times, it does not follow that 1) an older script is [i:e551a2acf4]of necessity[/i:e551a2acf4] more reliable because it is older, and 2) that the BIBLE is to be treated like nothing more than another human composition. 

In the first case, all that needs happen in the case of the Illiad is for an older copy dating back earlier than the 10 cent AD (and its orig. composition well predates the NT age), and if it's reading supports not the 10 cent one, but even later ones, the textual tradition gets completely revamped, overnight, according to this canon. One could say, &quot;Well, this is older, must be better,&quot; but he wouldn't know that. It could be garbage that wasn't meant to be kept by the scribe, but was preserved after all. It's just a guess that assigns priority to older mss. That guess needs to be tempered by a host of other considerations.

In the second case, the whole higher-critical approach to the Bible is fataly flawed by unbelief and impiety. Their presupposition is that the Bible is nothing more than an human work, or should be treated that anyway, even if it is special. In no case should one assume that God and God's people had any special interest or divine assistance in the preservation of the Word. The 18 &amp; 19 century men who pioneered this approach believed (on faith!) that the homogenous nature of the Byz. text was due to a massive 4th century recension (official editing job) that &quot;created&quot; a &quot;standard text&quot; out of the (surely must have been terribly corrupt, 4 centuries of accumulated errors, insertions, textual haywire, uuuugh!) previous material, all of which they then got rid of in order to preserve their own vesion and corresponding monopoly power over the text. There is not a shred of evidence that this editing job ever took place. The whole thing is predicated on the same intellectual outlook that supports evolutionary biological dogma. &quot;Well, we've got no other explanation; we KNOW no god had anything to do with it; so this is what must have happened!&quot; 

The &quot;older, therefore better&quot; assumption is not to be assumed the &quot;more excellent way&quot; in biblical textual studies, not when there are weighty considerations against it. It should not be dismissed, either. I want to be clear: Let ALL the textual evidence be brought out for examination, and let us fearlessly admit our theological bias (not a supposed neutrality) in favor of the doctrine of preservation, and a sober recognition of human frailty, that accounts for the various readings, all the while admiring the amazing consistency of the whole

A couple of final points. I [i:e551a2acf4]do[/i:e551a2acf4] reject the I John 5:7-8 passage. There is simply no credible Greek evidence for it. Period. Erasmus' TR included it (in the final edition) [i:e551a2acf4]only[/i:e551a2acf4] because he (rashly) promised to include it if even ONE Greek manuscript could be produced that had it in it (some Latin mss had it, but he had excluded it on the basis of the evidence). Whereupon, viola, someone produced a copy out from some obscure Irish (I think) monastery. 
I think the ink was still wet.

The &quot;floating&quot; text that has settled in John 8 has, and continues to &quot;bear within itself&quot; all the hallmarks of divine inspiration. The vignette is certainly quite ancient, i.e. it is by no means a post-apostolic age fragment. For all the questions about its &quot;place&quot;, it has consistently defied attempts to excise it. If anyone has serious doubts about it, then he ought not preach it like it is Scripture. Skip it. But, for my part, I recognize the Voice of God in its lines.

Mark 16's final lines have a rather significant provenance, despite Siniaticus' and Vaticanius' ommisions. All in all, In my humble opinion they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Lastly, for a recent scholarly defense of the Bzy. mss tradition as (at least!) parity in value with the Alex. mss tradition, see Harry A. Sturz, [i:e551a2acf4]The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism,[/i:e551a2acf4] Thomas Nelson, 1984.

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Authorised

quote:A couple of final points. I do reject the I John 5:7-8 passage. There is simply no credible Greek evidence for it. Period. Erasmus' TR included it (in the final edition) only because he (rashly) promised to include it if even ONE Greek manuscript could be produced that had it in it (some Latin mss had it, but he had excluded it on the basis of the evidence). Whereupon, viola, someone produced a copy out from some obscure Irish (I think) monastery. 
I think the ink was still wet. 


It wasn't the manuscript that was made to order, it was the entire story. 

Again, the Johannine Comma belongs in scripture. It is the only verse in the NT that makes it clear that the three persons of the trinity are one; and as others have noted in the past, the passage flows much better with the verse than without. Regardless of manuscript evidence (and this is what I said earlier), verses are more likely to be taken OUT, not added in. Especially verses about a doctrine which was heavily denied during the time period when the erroneous manuscripts were written.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Aaron, 
I respect your love for the authority and integrity of Scripture.
I respect that you are willing to defend this point, no disrespect intended by my disagreement.

Could you more positively argue for the point? What you have said so far is that:
1) To some readers, there is a stylistic argument in favor of inclusion. However, that point is going to fall flat with people arguing the same &quot;flow&quot; point from the other side. Flow versus flow--in the end people are going to look elsewhere for a decisive argument.
2) An argument from silence, based on the context of the historical clash between Arians and Orthodox Christians. If you agree that it was possible for the establishment church, when it was dominated by Arians and led by the Emporer, to sweep away [i:5329896b19]all[/i:5329896b19] the Greek mss evidence for this one passage of Scripture, then you have just made the case also for the whole &quot;4th century revision&quot; of the Byz. text-type. I think it is a preposterous fiction to suppose that the Arians or the Orthodox ever had the ability to collect all the myriads of copies of the Christian Scriptures, collate, revise, and then effectively suppress the Word of God. To me it defies reason and the doctrine of preservation.

I am not aware (please correct me if I'm wrong) that this cardinal passage, assuming for the sake of argument its longer inclusio, was ever quoted by the Orthodox fathers (such as Athanasius) against the heretic Arians. If not (and that is the position I am taking in the absence of other evidence) then [i:5329896b19]that[/i:5329896b19] is the more powerful &quot;argument from silence&quot; against it being part of the original letter of John.


----------



## Authorised

The earliest quotation I know of is when Tertullian (145-220) defended the Trinity against Praxeas.


If you have the Eerdmans edition of the church Fathers it is Volume III, and it starts on page 597.

[Edited on (7/9/04) by Authorised]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I appreciate the reference.
I'll definitely check it out and get back.
May take a couple days because I have to go to the library.
I'll do some additional research too.
Peace,


----------



## JohnV

For someone like myself, who does not have capabilities in the the original languages, we have to find different ways to authenticate things like this. So my mind goes back to the different considerations that the Church Fathers had in making difinitive decisions about the canonicity of certain books. 

When I look at the texts, like John 8, Mark 16, or 1 John 5, I look at whether what it says agree with the rest of Scripture. I can't tell whether or not it has been added or not, but I can tell if what it teaches has that ascendant air to it. And I see no reason to doubt the texts in question. 

The problem I see in this is quoting these texts as authoritative, like quoting anything out of Job. Does it come from man or from God? So I would try not to use these texts without other texts, if I am in a circle of company that holds out doubt about them.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Aaron, I have done some homework.

I have to disagree again about Erasmus. He did exclude the [i:1feab119ba]Comma[/i:1feab119ba] from the first two editions of his GNT. ANd when he had inserted it in his 3rd edition, he did include a footnote in the margin that indicated he felt pressured to include it against his better judgment, and that the evidence for it had been manufactured. This conclusion of mine is based on secondary sources because I do not have access to a set of Erasmus' editions. But it would be a simple thing to brand these secondary authorities liars by producing Erasmus' work, minus the footnote. That has not been done to my knowledge. Calvin, respecting the scholarship of his day, inclined toward the longer, but after briefly expounding it writes: &quot;Yet inasmuch as not all accept this reading, I will expound what follows as though the apostle referred only to the witnesses on earth.&quot; Calvin was no shrinking violet. If this was not a respectful disagreement, he would have blasted his opponents for corrupting the Word of God. He was quite evidently open-minded on this subject.

With regard to Tertullian and [i:1feab119ba]Against Praxeas[/i:1feab119ba]:
I read the entire work and did not find any reference or even an allusion to I John 5:7-8.
I then read some of the editorial afterword material. In Elucidation III (p.631) apparently the American editor, Dr. Coxe, expands a little upon the supposition that in ch. 25 (p. 621) some have found a [i:1feab119ba]fragment[/i:1feab119ba] of the [i:1feab119ba]Comma,[/i:1feab119ba] which part reads in the translation, &quot;These three are one essence&quot; [i:1feab119ba]Qui tres unum sunt.[/i:1feab119ba]
It is worth noting that this editorial starts off with Dr. Coxe's respectful quoting of another learned author's comment, &quot;In my opinion, the passage in Tertullian, far from containing an allusion to I. John v. 7, furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing ofthe verse.&quot; Dr. Coxe himself is otherwise persuaded (against the acknowledged weight of opinion) believing that the North African Latin Bible in Tertullian's possession had an extended version of this text. [b:1feab119ba]However[/b:1feab119ba] his final sentence closes with these words: &quot;I. John v. 7 being Scripture [he means that it is [i:1feab119ba]Scriptural,[/i:1feab119ba] being drawn from other pasages, cf. above in his essay], ought to be left untouched in the Versions where it stands, [b:1feab119ba]although it be no part of the Greek Testament.[/b:1feab119ba] Dr. Coxe is only arguing (in 1885) for leaving the KJV as it is.

It is conjectural that Tertullian refers to the [i:1feab119ba]Comma.[/i:1feab119ba] The words are extracted from a sentence where their contextual gloss varies from the same words in the biblical context. Also, the three words themselves (albeit in Latin; [i:1feab119ba]qui[/i:1feab119ba] is nowhere in the biblical Latin text, in any variants I could find) are in both the long and short versions of the text. Therefore their presence can easily be argued a mere fortuitous choice of words. It is certainly far from powerful testimony to the longer [i:1feab119ba]inclusio[/i:1feab119ba] being Scripture.
In fact, we actually have another argument from silence here, again to the detriment of the [i:1feab119ba]Comma's[/i:1feab119ba] case. Why didn't Tertullian use this verse (presumably in full) against Praxeas? It would have been a [i:1feab119ba]coup de grace![/i:1feab119ba] As I read Tertullian, I find he does not presume to much upon the reader. He accuses Praxeas of not really knowing his Bible; hence he quotes copiously, at length, and in context. He lays it all out in argument and forcefully makes his points. In his final two sentences he quotes from two verses in I John, only 20 verses apart, that bracket the disputed passage. 

FInally, to more positively restate my position, let me quote from one of my esteemed fathers in faith, Dr. R.L. Dabney, who also favored the Byz/TR tradition (as I do!): &quot;So slight were the modifications in its readings clearly determined by the vast collations made by the critics of the immediately preceding generation (collations embracing every one of the boasted unicals, except the Sinai MS.), that of all the important various readings only one (1 John v. 7,) has been given up to excision by a unanimous consent of competent critics.&quot;


----------



## Authorised

Again, lets deal with the text itself. 

Most scholars estimate around 5000 Greek mss. before the invention of printing.

Yet the 10,000 Old Latin mss., the Peshitta and other secondary versions which include the Comma testify to the veracity of the Comma-- mss. which were translated from the early Greek Texts.

Perhaps one more book recommendation?

It's called &quot;A History of the Debate over I John 5:7-8&quot; by Michael Maynard...perhaps it can answer more of these objections better than I. The author is a librarian for the University of Arizona who heavily, heavily researched and quoted leading scholars from every century since the existence of Christianity. He determined that of the manuscripts that occur before the 10th century (in Greek), only 14 leave the Comma out. Not only that, but of all the possible manuscripts the United Bible Society could have used to create (literally) their Greek text, 29 were consulted. 

The footnote in many translations of the Bible which state that &quot;no Greek mss. from before the 16 century contain this verse&quot; is a lie. Yet why would translators make statements like this, and why do new English translations keep coming down the line, and why do publishers keep publishing them? Follow the yellow brick road.

As for the snide quotation by Dabney, I think it is far from true to say that all &quot;competent critics&quot; &quot;unanimously&quot; agree, much less to assume (as his statement does) that those who disagree aren't able scholars as well. Who is quoting who here? I wouldn't be surprised if this statement was drawn up based upon testimony of critics who DO disagree with the Byzantine text. These Evangelicals quote each other over and over, parroting the same statements and apocryphal tales of Erasmus, and no one ever calls them on it.

This isn't a matter of picking and choosing which verses one likes from each textual tradition. To say that one part of one textual tradition is falsely edited is to implicate other verses to the same charges of falsehood, such as the word &quot;God&quot; used in reference to Jesus used in I Timothy 3:16, or the many, many other verses where doctrine is affected. 

One more point:

Considering there are 85000 patristic quotations from the Bible, from all points of the globe, I doubt the &quot;absence&quot; of the quotation (which as it was said, is &quot;conjectural&quot from one treatise proves anything for or against the verse.


----------



## ReformedWretch

John MaCarthur's study bible has a good commentary on this passage. I am very tired now (almost 4am here) so maybe I will type it out tomorrow. (He seems to believe Mark didn't write this passage.)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

[quote:9bd68fc857][i:9bd68fc857]Originally posted by Authorised[/i:9bd68fc857] 
Again, lets deal with the text itself. [/quote:9bd68fc857] I'm sorry if you feel I was not directly addressing the specific points you raised. I'm not sure how you reason I failed to face the text. [quote:9bd68fc857]Most scholars estimate around 5000 Greek mss. before the invention of printing.

Yet the 10,000 Old Latin mss., the Peshitta and other secondary versions which include the Comma testify to the veracity of the Comma-- mss. which were translated from the early Greek Texts.[/quote:9bd68fc857] I'm a little surprised that so few Greek mss are supposed to have been created. I would have expected vastly more. B.B. Warfield certainly appears to have thought so. All the myriad translated texts also have a family tree. I do not dispute the contention that a [i:9bd68fc857]unanimous[/i:9bd68fc857] presence of this passage in the earliest copies of all early translations, if it exists, is significant evidence for the passage. It is also possible that early corruptions in key places can contribute to problems. Don't you agree this is the crux of the argument [i:9bd68fc857]against[/i:9bd68fc857] the quality of the Alexandrine Greek text? [quote:9bd68fc857]Perhaps one more book recommendation?

It's called &quot;A History of the Debate over I John 5:7-8&quot; by Michael Maynard...perhaps it can answer more of these objections better than I. The author is a librarian for the University of Arizona who heavily, heavily researched and quoted leading scholars from every century since the existence of Christianity. He determined that of the manuscripts that occur before the 10th century (in Greek), only 14 leave the Comma out. Not only that, but of all the possible manuscripts the United Bible Society could have used to create (literally) their Greek text, 29 were consulted. [/quote:9bd68fc857] Sounds like a book worth investigating. We are both hamstrung by our limitations. We have to go with the &quot;experts&quot; who are available to us in one form or another, and build a base of knowledge. Certainly the statement that the passage [i:9bd68fc857]does[/i:9bd68fc857] appear in early Greek mss bears further checking, given the strong statements made to the contrary. And I don't care for the UBS text any more than you do. I believe I've made that point in every one of my posts. [quote:9bd68fc857]The footnote in many translations of the Bible which state that &quot;no Greek mss. from before the 16 century contain this verse&quot; is a lie. Yet why would translators make statements like this, and why do new English translations keep coming down the line, and why do publishers keep publishing them? Follow the yellow brick road.[/quote:9bd68fc857] That's a powerful accusation. It is a blanket condemnation of a host of godly scholars along with the godless. It assumes that your chosen authorities are full of grace and truth and their opponents, all of them, are the devils pawns. This is all the more striking when you consider how neither you nor I personally have the scholarly caliber to debate on their level. [quote:9bd68fc857]As for the snide quotation by Dabney, I think it is far from true to say that all &quot;competent critics&quot; &quot;unanimously&quot; agree, much less to assume (as his statement does) that those who disagree aren't able scholars as well. Who is quoting who here? I wouldn't be surprised if this statement was drawn up based upon testimony of critics who DO disagree with the Byzantine text. These Evangelicals quote each other over and over, parroting the same statements and apocryphal tales of Erasmus, and no one ever calls them on it.[/quote:9bd68fc857] Dictionary definition--&quot;Snide: derogatory in a malicious, superior way; sarcastic.&quot; I don't know if you meant [i:9bd68fc857]I[/i:9bd68fc857] was snide or Dabney was, but I think your choice of language lowers the level of our discourse. The quote comes directly from him in an article in which he reviews NEGATIVELY the newly minted Revised Standard Version of 
1881. At the end of the article, after using language like &quot;the old is better,&quot; &quot;yielded too much,&quot; and &quot;multitude of needless emendations,&quot; he asks rhetorically, &quot;Is this a revision or a new version?&quot; No sir, Dabney was a first-rate scholar, a godly man, and one who did, in fact, favor the historical text. The very quote itself disproves your hypothesis about anti-Byz critics. And his opinion is not inferior to that of your preferred authorities, even if you do not like his categorical statements. Your last comments are simply invective against disagreement. If the Erasmus reference is false (or you don't believe it), simply say so and list your reasons (such as: you have in fact seen a copy of his 3rd edition, and the footnote isn't there). [quote:9bd68fc857]This isn't a matter of picking and choosing which verses one likes from each textual tradition. To say that one part of one textual tradition is falsely edited is to implicate other verses to the same charges of falsehood, such as the word &quot;God&quot; used in reference to Jesus used in I Timothy 3:16, or the many, many other verses where doctrine is affected.[/quote:9bd68fc857] Suffice to say that reading my position as if it were the one above is to misunderstand it or misrepresent it.[quote:9bd68fc857] One more point:

Considering there are 85000 patristic quotations from the Bible, from all points of the globe, I doubt the &quot;absence&quot; of the quotation (which as it was said, is &quot;conjectural&quot from one treatise proves anything for or against the verse. [/quote:9bd68fc857] Dictionary definition: &quot;Conjecture: inference or judgment based on incomplete or inconclusive evidence.&quot; Nothing pejorative in the word. I did not choose Tertullian out of the blue. I diligently attended upon the evidence yourself put forth as one piece (I assumed there was more than this) substantiating the pro-Comma position. I tried it and found it inconclusive by a fairly objective standard of measurement.

I restate: You are entitled to hold your position. It is a position that has reasons and evidence, and you should be respected for thinking it through and defending it. It has not yet persuaded me. Your book recommendation I promise to follow up on.

Peace,


----------



## Authorised

I was referring to Dabney assuming that all ";;competent scholars";; believe this way when I said the word snide. I didn't mean it towards you, personally. Again, when a footnote states that no manuscripts before the 16th century contain this verse, yet there are manuscripts that do, the footnote is a lie.

I found an article I was looking for yesterday...

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html

While this article is pretty good, I do not in any way believe the theology of the rest of this page is in any way consistent with Biblical teaching. This article only concerns itself with the text, though. The person who wrote this article has an understanding of which mss. have and have not the Comma which is different than the author of the book I just mentioned. I wonder who really even knows anymore.


----------



## Authorised

heh...I'm also secretly wondering if debating over one single verse is straining at a gnat, or attempting to understand all sides of this issue is swallowing a camel...


----------



## JohnStevenson

*Scot: Personally, I do believe that these versus belong the*

Scot: Personally, I do believe that these versus belong...

I'm inclined to agree. It has been pointed out that the Codex Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph), dated at approximately 365 A.D., omits the entire passage, stopping at Mark 16:8.

On the other hand, Codex Vaticanus (Codex B) is dated 15 years earlier than the Sinaiticus and also omits the passage, but with a space left blank between the end of Mark 16:8 and the beginning of Luke. This is unusual for this manuscript that does not normally leave this sort of space between one book and the next. It is as though the scribe of the manuscript was aware that something else ought to go there which he did not have at hand, so he intentionally left a space for its later inclusion.

Thus, the older of these two manuscripts indicates an older manuscript than itself -- the manuscript from which it was copied; and this blank space bears silent testimony to a longer ending that was understood by the scribe to be there.

The great mass of manuscript evidence attests to the longer traditional ending. There are a few manuscripts that have both the long and the short endings together (L, Psi, 0112, 099, 579).

The manuscript evidence against the authenticity of the longer ending appeals to only two primary witnesses: The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. All of the various manuscript families except for the Proto-Alexandrian family of texts bear witness of the longer ending.

EVIDENCE FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

1. Jerome translated the longer ending and placed it into the Latin Vulgate (160 A.D.). He also quote from the passage several times.

2. Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:20 and attributes it to that gospel (177 A.D.).

3. Eusebius states that by his day there were manuscripts to be found both with and without the long ending.

EVIDENCE FROM STYLE AND PHRASEOLOGY

If it is assumed that the Gospel of Mark ends at the close of Mark 16:8, the abruptness of the conclusion would be striking in the English translation and even more so in the Greek, ending with the phrase ephobounto gar ("for they feared"). It seems scarcely possible to suppose that it could have ended at this point.

Because of this, there are some scholars who suggest that the original ending was lost. But this does not negate the fact that the traditional longer ending might itself be that ending which was lost from some of those early manuscripts.

Much has been made of the fact that these verse contain nine words that Mark uses nowhere else in his Gospel. But the same can be said of the first eight verses of this chapter which are undisputed by all authorities[/quote]


----------



## dado6

John,

Your date for Jerome and the Vulgate is off. He did most of his translation work between 390 and 415. He was a contemporary of Augustine.

Rob


----------

