The End of the book of Mark?

[Steven Avery]

Back to the OP.

Since 99.9% (999 out of every 1,000) of the extant Greek, Latin and Syriac mss (the 3 principle early lines) have the traditional ending of Mark ..

And .. it is used in the Ante-Nicene period frequently by various early church writers

And .. the short "women afraid" ending is nothing but an ugly mangling of the text, beyond being stylistically, historically and conceptually absurd.

There is no reason to entertain any ending other than the pure Bible traditional text with the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And with the ascension (the modern corruption versions are often missing the other principle ascension verse Luke 24:51, or claiming it is simply man's tampering.)

Text frequently drops from the Bible temporarily by the simplest of all scribal errors, omission. That happened a bit with the Mark ending, leaving the abbreviated corrupt ending. And/or the last page dropped off. From apologetic confusion, some scribes faced with the split line may have even preferred the mangled version.

A third worthless ending was used in a couple of mss as a fill-in, when a scribe was faced with the ugly woman afraid non-ending. If I remember, it was mentioned by Jerome. There is little reason to study oddball nothings.

And there really is no reason for a Christian believer to waste time with the absurdities of the textual critics here. There is a pride of life that moves men in rebellion to try to remake the Bible in their own image. There is a spirit of rebellion that desires uncertainty about the pure and perfect word of God.

The Mark ending is the pure word of God.

Mark 16:9-20
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

===========

Proverbs 30:5 (AV)
Every word of God is pure:
he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Steven

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Roger, with your post above, I have lost all respect for your scholarship and similarly lost interest in any more discussion.

Maybe if I had more time, I would go into a point or two bit more, but I have learned enough from our discussion to know that other research and discussion is far more important. There is a spiritual principality at play.

Steven

*I genuinely do not care if someone views me as "scholarly" or not. I am only in search of biblical certitude on any given dogma.

*Further, you have made numerous disparaging comments on this - and many other - threads. If you can dish it out don't cry "foul ball" when the favor is returned.

*For ex., you (farcically) claimed that Dr. Daniel Wallace is not "playing with a full deck" & the man is not even here to defend himself - & would school you proper in text-critic issues. Do you even know the story behind Wallace's viral encephalitis & how he retaught himself ancient Greek by reading his own text books? Perhaps you should email him to straighten' out his textual "errors" .

*(New International Greek [Exegetical] Commentary):

A. Textual Evidence:

1. The text ends at 16:8 in the major fourth-century codices א and B and in a number of MSS of versions, notably the fourth-century Sinaitic Syriac. Clement of Alexandria and Origen do not appear to have known any text beyond v. 8, and Eusebius and Jerome both state that the traditional Londer Ending (vv. 9-20) was not found in the majority of the Greek MSS available to them. The earliest form of the Eusebian canons (deriving from Ammonius, early third century) made no provision for readings in Mark beyond 16:8.

*Again, I argue for the inclusion of the LEM, but to say that there are only 3 early MSS that omit this unit of passages betrays either an agenda (most likely) or gross ignorance of these textual issues. My point stands.

[Steven Avery]

Just to be clear, I have sent some corrections by email to Daniel Wallace privately (in one case he made a mini-correction that still kept the fundamental error.) And some major corrections I have placed publicly. In recent years I have not bothered with the private approach because he is was basically unresponsive.

An example is an article I wrote and placed on a forum where Daniel Wallace participates:

[textualcriticism] statistical illiteracy in textual scholarship - Daniel Wallace -
Steven Avery 2015-07-27
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/.../messages/8399
[TC-Alternate] - Steven Avery - July 28, 2015
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/.../messages/5978

A more readable version is here. To which I can update and add.

Pure Bible Forum
statistical illiteracy in textual scholarship - Daniel Wallace struggles with numbers
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...=634&styleid=2

The places where he makes ridiculous errors like this and grossly distorts information are all over the textual map. In his article at issue his absurd use of numbers was a primary part of his attack on Reformation Bible and Majority Text positions. Another example of not playing with a full deck.

Anybody who counts on Daniel Wallace as a primary source of textual understanding is going to be in a very bad way in their pure Bible identity and text understanding. Daniel Wallace and his organization can be helpful for pictures of manuscripts.

Is the post above asserting that Daniel Wallace has a health condition that should excuse errors in some areas? That would be a puzzling assertion.

============

In many cases James Snapp has in fact corrected major blunders from Daniel Wallace publicly. In general, in those cases, James Snapp is right, Daniel Wallace is wrong, and Wallace does NOT make the proper correction. James at times does throw around "lying" a little too loosely in his corrections, although he may have improved on that element.

In other cases, like the Granville Sharp rule, many people have shown his inconsistencies and errors. Stanley Porter was one there, and on the CARM forum you can find much more.

An interesting point is how he writes articles about infallibility and inerrancy and never mentions the daughter of Herod in his NETBible.

============

Steven

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Which manuscripts?

Anyone?

[rdp]

*I will be contacting Wallace about these alleged errors. He always responds to me & we have actually discussed the ECF quotes of the Byzantine platform text type (we discussed this several years ago for several days).

*Wallace's work Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics; An Exegetical Syntax of the Greek NT (BTW, I would be very curious to know if Steven Avery or James Snapp actually knows how to read the Greek MSS?) was in approx. 2/3 of American seminaries when Dr. Wallace contracted viral encephalitis which wiped out most of his memory. At one point he couldn't even remember his own wife's name. As he got better he retaught himself ancient Greek by reading his own text book grammars!

*Of course, this is not to suggest he is infallible, but, he has well established himself as one of the premier text-critics & Greek grammarians in the world today. All one has to do is look on the Munster website to verify this (http://egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/index_en.shtml).

*Simply, KJVO's represent fringe scholarship & is not even taken seriously in academia-proper (ask Ehrman). As I stated to Wallace & he agreed, "textual variants should be weighed individually as opposed to merely consigning them to a particular genealogical family."

*Mr. Avery - I will apologize for my curt responses to you. As you can see we are poles apart on this topic, but I do appreciate your labor in this area regardless of our vehement differences. God bless.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Anyone?

*I have already referenced them several times above.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by rdp

*I have already referenced them several times above.

I re-read the posts but did not find an enumeration of the manuscripts which do not contain the LEM. I'll see if I can find a list somewhere.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I re-read the posts but did not find an enumeration of the manuscripts which do not contain the LEM. I'll see if I can find a list somewhere.

From the wikipedia article (I know, I know...)

Manuscripts omitting Mark 16:9–20
The last twelve verses, 16:9–20, are not present in two 4th-century manuscripts: Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the earliest complete manuscripts of Mark.

(Papyrus 45 is the oldest extant manuscript that contains text from Mark, but it has no text from chapter 16 due to extensive damage).

Codex Vaticanus (4th century) has a blank column after ending at 16:8 and placing kata Markon, "according to Mark". There are three other blank columns in Vaticanus, in the Old Testament, but they are each due to incidental factors in the production of the codex: a change to the column-format, a change of scribes, and the conclusion of the Old Testament portion of the text. The blank column between Mark 16:8 and the beginning of Luke, however, is deliberately placed.

It has been suggested that Codex Vaticanus may be reflecting a Western order of the gospels with Mark as the last book (Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark).

Other manuscripts that omit the last twelve verses include: minuscule 304 (12th century), Syriac Sinaiticus (from the late 4th-century), and a Sahidic manuscript.

In addition to these, over 100 Armenian manuscripts, as well as the two oldest Georgian manuscripts, also omit the appendix.

The Armenian Version was made in 411-450, and the Old Georgian Version was based mainly on the Armenian Version.

Manuscripts adding a shorter ending after verse 8
Codex Bobiensis (4th or 5th century, Latin).

Also inserts a unique interpolation between 16:3 and 16:4 and with the last phrase of 16:8 omitted.

Manuscripts adding a shorter ending and verses 9–20
Six Greek manuscripts add the "shorter ending" after 16:8 and follows it with vv. 9–20. Includes: Codex L (019), Codex Ψ (044), Uncial 083, Uncial 099

minuscule 274 (margin), minuscule 579, lectionary 1602.

Syriac Harclean margin.

Ethiopic manuscripts.

Coptic texts: Sahidic manuscripts, Bohairic manuscripts (Huntington MS 17).

Manuscripts adding verses 9–20
A group of manuscripts known as "Family 13" adds Mark 16:9–20 in its traditional form.

Including about a dozen uncials (the earliest being Codex Alexandrinus) and in all undamaged minuscules.[32]

Uncials: A, C, D, W, Codex Koridethi, and minuscules: 33, 565, 700, 892, 2674.

The Majority/Byzantine Text (over 1,200 manuscripts of Mark); the Vulgate and part of the Old Latin, Syriac Curetonian, Peshitta, Bohairic, Gothic;[33]

Manuscripts adding verses 9–20 with a notation
A group of manuscripts known as "Family 1" add a note to Mark 16:9–20, stating that some copies do not contain the verses.

Including minuscules: 22, 138, 205, 1110, 1210, 1221, 1582.

One Armenian manuscript, Matenadaran 2374 (formerly known as Etchmiadsin 229), made in 989, features a note, written between 16:8 and 16:9, Ariston eritzou, that is, "By Ariston the Elder/Priest".

Ariston, or Aristion, is known from early traditions (preserved by Papias and others) as a colleague of Peter and as a bishop of Smyrna in the first century.

Manuscripts adding verses 9–20 without divisions
A group of manuscripts known as "Family K1" add Mark 16:9-10 without numbered κεφαλαια (chapters) at the margin and their τιτλοι (titles) at the top (or the foot).[34]

Including: Minuscule 461.

Manuscripts adding verses 9–20 with an extra passage
Noted in manuscripts according to Jerome.

Codex Washingtonianus (late 4th, early 5th century) includes verses 9–20 and features an addition between 16:14-15 known as the "Freer Logion":

And they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now" – thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, "The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven."[35]

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Esaias

From the wikipedia article (I know, I know...)

Manuscripts omitting Mark 16:9–20
The last twelve verses, 16:9–20, are not present in two 4th-century manuscripts: Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the earliest complete manuscripts of Mark.

(Papyrus 45 is the oldest extant manuscript that contains text from Mark, but it has no text from chapter 16 due to extensive damage).

Codex Vaticanus (4th century) has a blank column after ending at 16:8 and placing kata Markon, "according to Mark". There are three other blank columns in Vaticanus, in the Old Testament, but they are each due to incidental factors in the production of the codex: a change to the column-format, a change of scribes, and the conclusion of the Old Testament portion of the text. The blank column between Mark 16:8 and the beginning of Luke, however, is deliberately placed.

It has been suggested that Codex Vaticanus may be reflecting a Western order of the gospels with Mark as the last book (Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark).

Other manuscripts that omit the last twelve verses include: minuscule 304 (12th century), Syriac Sinaiticus (from the late 4th-century), and a Sahidic manuscript.

In addition to these, over 100 Armenian manuscripts, as well as the two oldest Georgian manuscripts, also omit the appendix.

The Armenian Version was made in 411-450, and the Old Georgian Version was based mainly on the Armenian Version.

Manuscripts adding a shorter ending after verse 8
Codex Bobiensis (4th or 5th century, Latin).

Also inserts a unique interpolation between 16:3 and 16:4 and with the last phrase of 16:8 omitted.

Manuscripts adding a shorter ending and verses 9–20
Six Greek manuscripts add the "shorter ending" after 16:8 and follows it with vv. 9–20. Includes: Codex L (019), Codex Ψ (044), Uncial 083, Uncial 099

minuscule 274 (margin), minuscule 579, lectionary 1602.

Syriac Harclean margin.

Ethiopic manuscripts.

Coptic texts: Sahidic manuscripts, Bohairic manuscripts (Huntington MS 17).

Manuscripts adding verses 9–20
A group of manuscripts known as "Family 13" adds Mark 16:9–20 in its traditional form.

Including about a dozen uncials (the earliest being Codex Alexandrinus) and in all undamaged minuscules.[32]

Uncials: A, C, D, W, Codex Koridethi, and minuscules: 33, 565, 700, 892, 2674.

The Majority/Byzantine Text (over 1,200 manuscripts of Mark); the Vulgate and part of the Old Latin, Syriac Curetonian, Peshitta, Bohairic, Gothic;[33]

Manuscripts adding verses 9–20 with a notation
A group of manuscripts known as "Family 1" add a note to Mark 16:9–20, stating that some copies do not contain the verses.

Including minuscules: 22, 138, 205, 1110, 1210, 1221, 1582.

One Armenian manuscript, Matenadaran 2374 (formerly known as Etchmiadsin 229), made in 989, features a note, written between 16:8 and 16:9, Ariston eritzou, that is, "By Ariston the Elder/Priest".

Ariston, or Aristion, is known from early traditions (preserved by Papias and others) as a colleague of Peter and as a bishop of Smyrna in the first century.

Manuscripts adding verses 9–20 without divisions
A group of manuscripts known as "Family K1" add Mark 16:9-10 without numbered κεφαλαια (chapters) at the margin and their τιτλοι (titles) at the top (or the foot).[34]

Including: Minuscule 461.

Manuscripts adding verses 9–20 with an extra passage
Noted in manuscripts according to Jerome.

Codex Washingtonianus (late 4th, early 5th century) includes verses 9–20 and features an addition between 16:14-15 known as the "Freer Logion":

And they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now" – thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, "The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven."[35]

*Thank you.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Manuscripts adding verses 9–20

This is an incredibly confused section.

Basically ALL 1600+ Greek, 2500+ (estimate) Latin, and 500+ Syriac (about 4 with the short ending here) and thousands of mss in other lines like Coptic and Sahadic have the traditional ending. The only lines that really have a split are Armenian and Georgian, an offshoot of Armenian.

The exposition is filtered through the apparatus which has its own purposes and designs and shorthand methods and omissions (e.g. even many uncials are omitted.)

Again, 99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac mss have the traditional ending.

Steven