Alison

I haven't read through all the replies, but most theologians will agree that the earliest Mark could have been written was 70AD.

Alison.

Diogenes the Cynic

While the word "plagarize" is somewhat of an anachronistic and overly polemic characterization of the process, Mr. Zindler is essentially correct in his basic assertions that the four canonical gospels are all works of unknown authors (none of them apostles or eyewitnesses of anything), and that the traditional names assigned to them are second century ascriptions to anonymous books. The widely accepted dates of authorship range from around 70 CE for Mark (with an absolute bottom in the mid 60's) to around 100 for John.

Your assertion that "most scholars are impressed with their consistency" as well as you implication that most, or even many scholars view the gospels as "authentic" either in their historical claims or in their traditional attributions of authorship are simply false. The vast majority of scholarship on this understands the gospels to be at least partial, if not total fictions and virtually nobody except the most diehard religious traditionalists accept the traditional authorships and absurdly early dates you're assigning to them.

Quote:

Matthew: As mentioned before, it was once thought that Matthew was written after the destruction of Jerusalem until the Magdalene Jesus Papyri were found (also known as 17P64). It is a segment of Greek text of Matthew’s Gospel, Matthew 26:23 and 31, which has been dated before A.D 66. In 1994, using a scanning laser microscope, Dr. Carsten Thiede compared this fragment with four other manuscripts and concluded that either this is an original of Matthew’s Gospel, or an immediate copy written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses were still alive. This was a big shock to the skeptics who have always maintained that Matthew was written in the second century. Technology has disproved that opinion. Incidentally, the Matthew segment corresponds to Textus Receptus, the traditional source documents.

There was no "shock" to any skeptics. Thiede is a crackpot. He used spurious methodology and his claims were universally rejected and debunked. You can find the details here.

The "skeptics" don't generally date Matthew to the 2nd century, by the way. Most date it around 80 CE.

Quote:

Mr. Zindler does in fact confirm that there was a man named “Saul� or Paul. Even though Mr. Zindler considers Saul to have had a delusion or vision of the Christ, the fact that he confirms the man “Saul� or “Paul� helps to date the gospels because the book of Acts was written after the Gospels. The same scribe that wrote the book of Acts confirmed that he is the same person who wrote an earlier book (which was the book of Luke). Therefore, Luke the Physician who was a scribe for the apostle Paul is the person who wrote both books. Paul wrote other books and confirmed many of the messages written by Luke in the book of Acts.

There's a bit of an excluded middle there. How do you get from saying the same author wrote Acts and GLuke (agreed) to concluding that author must have been a companion of Paul, or that he was a physician or that his name was Luke. or that he wrote anything before 70 CE? Neither Luke nor acts makes any of those claims and, in fact, the author's knowledge of Josephus dates him well into the 90's. The author did not know Paul, nor did he claim to have known Paul.

Since the author was writing well after Paul, it is no surprise that he would use some material for Paul's letters for his fictional narratives in Acts.

Quote:

The Book of Mark: Mr. Zindlar writes about the Gospel of Mark and states the following: “But what about the gospel of Mark, the oldest surviving gospel? Attaining essentially its final form probably as late as 90 CE but containing core material dating possibly as early as 70 CE, it omits, as we have seen, almost the entire traditional biography of Jesus, beginning the story with John the Baptist giving Jesus a bath, and ending - in the oldest manuscripts - with women running frightened from the empty tomb. (The alleged post resurrection appearances reported in the last twelve verses of Mark are not found in the earliest manuscripts, even though they are still printed in most modern bibles as though they were an "authentic" part of Mark's gospel.) Moreover, "Mark" being a non-Palestinian non-disciple, even the skimpy historical detail he provides is untrustworthy.�

All perfectly accurate.

Quote:

At least Mr. Zindlar agrees that the book of Mark was written before the second century.

As do most other scholars.

Quote:

The book of Mark must have been written earlier than 70 A.D. because of the fact that Jerusalem was not yet destroyed. As far as the latter verses in Mark 16, there are early writers that quote the verses that are found in other manuscripts of the book of Mark. For many centuries, there have been controversies among some Bible scholars about the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark. Your Bible probably has a footnote indicating that the last twelve verses of Mark are disputed or were added by some later scribe. This view comes from an excessive reliance on the Alexandrian manuscripts that were promoted by Westscott and Hort (The earliest writings of the Alexandrian manuscripts date from 325-350 A.D).

Here we go with this nonsense again. This view comes from the fact that the interpolated ending is not present in the oldest manuscripts, it contradicts Mark's own claim that the women didn't tell anyone and it differs from mark both sylistically and thematically..

Quote:

There are several ways to disprove this claim. First, in A.D. 150, Iranaeus quoted the passage in his commentary, so it must have been around in the second century and before 150 A.D. Hippolatus, also in the second century, quoted it. Furthermore, in the Syriac/Aramaic translation (the Peshitta, 250 A.D.), not all of the last part of Mark is missing. Most of it is admittedly, but the fact that fragments have been found of the Syriac version confirms that they must have existed. The following site shows the given words, phrases and verses found in the Syriac text: (blue exists, red was not found in Syriac Text) http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Arama.../Marqsch16.pdf

The most that any of this would prove is that the addition had been made by the 2nd Century. So what?

Quote:

Zindlar continues: “I have claimed that the unknown author of Mark was a non-Palestinian non-disciple, which would make his story mere hearsay. What evidence do we have for this assertion? First of all, Mark shows no first-hand understanding of the social situation in Palestine. He is clearly a foreigner, removed both in space and time from the events he alleges. For example, in Mark 10:12, he has Jesus say that if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. As G. A. Wells, the author of The Historical Evidence for Jesus 10 puts it, Such an utterance would have been meaningless in Palestine, where only men could obtain divorce. It is a ruling for the Gentile Christian readers... which the evangelist put into Jesus' mouth in order to give it authority. This tendency to anchor later customs and institutions to Jesus' supposed lifetime played a considerable role in the building up of his biography.

This is but one of the many arguments used to show that Mark was not a Palestinian Jew, but it is far from the only one or the strongest one.

Quote:

Response: It is likely that Mark wrote his Gospel letter shortly after his journeys with Paul and before 70 A.D. Mark traveled to other parts of Asia as well as the Palestine area.

What is the basis for any of these assertions? The author of GMark is unknown and makes no claims of any kind about "journeying with Paul." he makes no claim about himself, whatsoever.

Quote:

In the Roman Provinces, Divorce was accepted by the Roman law as simply two people choosing not to live together anymore, be it the woman or the man.

A fact which is consistent with an author who was Roman rather than Palestinian.

Quote:

Mark showed that Jesus established this law as a universal law for not only the Palestinian people, but to people all over the world.

Um...no...Roman divorce customs much preceded Jesus.

Quote:

John Recent archaeological discoveries include both the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1f) and "The Pavement" (John 19:13). Their existence was doubted just a few decades ago. Confirmation of the accuracy of the setting of Jacob's well has also been found (John 4).[4] Such findings have caused many scholars to reverse earlier skeptical opinions on the historicity of the Fourth Gospel. Its author has demonstrated an obvious intimate knowledge of the Jerusalem of Jesus' time, just as we would expect from the Apostle John. Such detail would not have been accessible to a writer of a later generation, since Jerusalem was demolished under Titus' Roman army in 70 A.D.

How about a list of three NT scholars who "doubted" the existence of the pool or asserted that it didn't exist?

John mentions other real sites in Jerusalem as well, you know. The Temple, Gethsemane. Fiction often uses real places.

Quote:

Luke: Many scholars are amazed at the archeological and historical accuracy of Luke.

No they aren't. Where do you get this stuff?

Quote:

The book of Luke is also supported by research and discovery. The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts (both written by Luke) have gained the respect of scholars who have investigated their numerous references to people and places in the Jewish and Roman worlds. Concerning Luke, F. F. Bruce has written, "A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even when means of testing him are not available" (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p.90).

A completely fallacious bit of logic.

Quote:

Here are some fascinating facts about Luke The following excerpt is from the book “Examine the Evidence� by Ralph Muncaster Sir William Ramsay (1852-1916). Sir William Ramsay was, arguably, the greatest archeologist of his day. He had rejected much of the written New Testament account and was determined to prove it false based on other writings of the day that contradicted the Bible. Ramsay believed that the books of Luke and Acts were actually written in about A.D. 150 and therefore did not bear the authenticity that a first-century document would. His archaeological journeys took him to 32 countries, 44 cities, and 9 islands. Throughout some 15 years of intensive study, he concluded that “Luke is a historian of the first rank-this author should be placed along with the greatest historians.�

Ramsay discovered some geographical sites mentioned in Acts. That is completely unremarkable and proves nothing about the historical claims in Luke-Acts. Schliemann discovered Troy, a city that many schoalrs had assumed was mythical. Does that prove that the Iliad must be historically accurate?

Quote:

Evidence that supports the Gospels: What Critics Thought There was no Roman Census (as indicated in Luke 2:1). Quirinius was not governor of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth (as indicated in Luke 2:2). People did not have to return to their ancestral home (as indicated in Luke 2:3). The existence of the treasurer of the city of Corinth, Erastus (Romans 16:23), was incorrect. Luke’s reference to Gallio as proconsul of Achaia was wrong (Acts 18:12). What Ramsay Discovered There was a Roman census every 14 years, beginning with Emperor Augustus. Quirinius was governor of Syria in about 7 B.C.

Ramsay discovered no such thing, dawg. Quirinius was not the governor of Syria before 6 CE. Ramsay did not discover anything different. Moreover, Judea was not a Roman province until 6 CE and so was not subject to Roman census or tax. Quirinius and Herod the Great never shared dominion over Judea.

The Roman censuses you're referring to only applied to Roman citizens, not to every peasant in a client kngdom or province.

Quote:

People did have to return to their home city-verified by an ancient Egyptian papyrus giving directions for conducting a census.

False. What the papyrus says is that folks who are away from their places of residence working in the cities had to return to where they lived, not to where they were born or to ancestral homes.
[quote]A city pavement in Corinth bearing the inscription “Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.

Quote:

Time and time again Ramsay’s search to find evidence that Luke’s writing was in error turned up evidence that it was, in fact, accurate. As a result, Sir William Ramsay eventually converted to Christianity and proclaimed Luke as “one of the greatest historians� of all time.

I'm sorry but this is just a pack of lies. Ramsay did not prove the things you say he did and, contrary to apologist legend, Ramsay was always a Christian. He just didn't start off as a Biblical literalist. His "conversion" is greatly exaggerated and his work is a century out of date. What does it tell you that you have to go back to the 1800s to find an archaeologist who will tell you what you want to hear?

Quote:

Most scholars (including skeptical ones) believe the book we call "1 Corinthians" was written before the Gospels. Moreover, most of the books written by Paul only confirm or validate the Gospels. An example would be: 1 Corinthians 15: 1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast--unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Huh? How does this "confirm" the gospels. It contradicts all four of them in one way or the other.

Quote:

Other Manuscripts Close to the First Century http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...bleorigin.html There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence. The oldest manuscripts were written on papyrus and the later manuscripts were written on leather called parchment. • 125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.) • 200 A.D. Bodmer p 66 a papyrus manuscript which contains a large part of the Gospel of John. • 200 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46 contains the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews. • 225 A.D. Bodmer Papyrus p 75 contains the Gospels of Luke and John. • 250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 45 contains portions of the four Gospels and Acts. • 350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament and almost the entire Old Testament in Greek. It was discovered by a German scholar Tisendorf in 1856 at an Orthodox monastery at Mt. Sinai. • 350 A.D. Codex Vaticanus: {B} is an almost complete New Testament. It was cataloged as being in the Vatican Library since 1475. Early translations of the New Testament can give important insight into the underlying Greek manuscripts from which they were translated from. • 180 A.D. Early translations of the New Testament from Greek into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions began about 180 A.D. • 195 A.D. The name of the first translation of the Old and New Testaments into Latin was termed Old Latin, both Testaments having been translated from the Greek. Parts of the Old Latin were found in quotes by the church father Tertullian, who lived around 160-220 A.D. in north Africa and wrote treatises on theology. • 300 A.D. The Old Syriac was a translation of the New Testament from the Greek into Syriac. • 300 A.D. The Coptic Versions: Coptic was spoken in four dialects in Egypt. The Bible was translated into each of these four dialects. Other manuscripts: 150 A.D.-------------Tatian's Diatesseron 200 A.D.-------------Clement's Manuscripts

Your point with these citations is what, exactly?

andrewcriddle

Irenaeus quotes the longer ending in Against Heresies book 3. Precise date uncertain but almost certainly after 175 probably not long after 175.

Justin Martyr in his (1st) Apology c 150-160 probably alludes to the longer ending but the allusion is not precise enough for certainty.

(FWIW in http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...1&page=3&pp=25 I gave reasons why I think Justin is referring to Mark 16:20)

Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery

:-) Since the primary evidence AGAINST the ending is its absense in a couple of oddball and scribally corrupt alexandrian manuscripts in the fourth century, the acknowledgment of widespread usage of the ending in the 2nd century, 3rd and 4th century, combined with the empty space in Vaticanus, shows us that the best interpretation of evidence is very simple -- Alexandrian OMISSION of the ending.

So the absense of discovered and pinpointed geographical sites (e.g. country of the Gadaranes) would be evidence against the historical claims, as loudly claimed, but actually finding the sites corresponding to the book is not evidence for. Can anyone say "level playing field" ?

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://gAroups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Vorkosigan

This argument was first made in 1871 in one of your sources, Dean John William Burgon. "'The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to St. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Objectors and Established." Can you point me to a modern analysis that supports this argument?

Prax, unfortunately this analysis doesn't work that way. For example, much of the exterior history and many geographic locales of As I Lay Dying are correct. But Yoknapatawpha county is fictional. Hence, we know the story is fictional even though much the history is correct. Similarly the Flashman novels (which I highly recommend) set their protagonist in the heart of the Victorian era, and have him meet famous and not so famous historical persons. The writer incorporates actual dialogue from historical individuals, and goes to great lengths to recreate real history for his book. But the central character, Flashman, is a fictional one taken from another famous 19th century novel.

Similarly, a fictional event or place in the Gospels is a strike against their historicity, while historical characters and places do not necessarily work the other way. I'm sure you are aware that first and second century Greek novelistic fiction specialized in locating its stories in the past, and in using real places and real people, to give them the right historical feel. Not all stories did this equally or well, but a veneer of historicity is a goal of Hellenistic fiction, and that same veneer of historicity, over a fictional story with fictional locations, is what we see in the Jesus tales.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Why is that interpretation better than -- "the added ending became very popular, relatively quickly because it seemed to make Mark's version more consistent with the other three"?

Steven Avery

Oftentimes Dean Burgon's viewpoints remain unrefuted and strong, and can simply be quoted by others. On the ending of Mark, his view of Eusebius has been analyzed a lot, beyond that I do not know of much critique, however there has been a lot of addtional scholarship support after he wrote in 1871.

================================================== =======
PREFACE - COLLATION INFO
================================================== =======

The best new collation is again Wieland Willker, where he
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf

Also Textexcavation, Ben. C. Smith does some good collation
http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html#tatian

For the most part they sitck to scholarship, not modern textcrit
paradigms & views, with small exceptions.

================================================== =
SCHOLARSHIP FOR TRADITIONAL MARK ENDING AFTER DEAN BURGON
================================================== =

Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html#dissent
We may fairly say that his (Dean Burgon) conclusions have in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very able counter-plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28-51)
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/...2.html#fn35sym
We shall hereafter defend these passages, the first [Mark 16:9-20] without the slightest misgiving

Dr. C. Taylor - The Expositor for July 1893 (Scrivener Footnote)
Discusses Justin Martyr, Epistle of Barnabas, the Quartodeciman controversy, Clement of Rome. "The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor's acute vision has discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force." - Scrivener

Wilbur Pickering
MARK 16:9-20 AND THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION
http://www.esgm.org/ingles/appendf.h.htm

Dr. Edward Hill
http://www.comekjv.com/bible/hills-06.html
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Hills_KJVD_Chapter6.htm
"These verses ...have an enormous weight of testimony in their favour, which cannot lightly be set aside. They are found in all the Greek manuscripts except B and Aleph and all the Latin manuscripts except k. And even more important, they were quoted as Scripture by early Church Fathers who died one hundred and fifty years before B and Aleph were written: namely Justin Martyr (c.150), Tatian (c. 175), Irenaeus (c. 180), and Hippolytus (c. 200). (continues)
Quoted by Rev. W. MacLean
http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Books..._preserved.htm

Professor Maurice Robinson - example of one textcrit list discussion
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/downlo...t/tc-list.9810
He may have other writings completed, or in process, on the Mark ending
And example of his manuscript scholarship on this is footnote 2
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleve...end.html#notes

Jim Snapp
http://www.waynecoc.org/MarkOne.html -- and related pages. e.g.
http://www.waynecoc.org/Evidence.html
Recently also in the textcrit Ephrem and Tatian and Diatessoran discussion

Dr. D. A. Waite - Summary added to Dean Burgon book

A. Wilson
Mark 16:9-20 - The Ending to Mark's Gospel
http://www.nttext.com/variant.html
UBS apparatus and more

Wayne Jackson
http://www.christiancourier.com/penp...616Assualt.htm
the genuineness of the text has been defended ably by some very respectable scholars (e.g., Scrivener, Burgon, McGarvey, Lenski.)

The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961),(Minneapolis: Augsburg).

Commentary on Matthew & Mark
McGarvey (n.d.), (Des Moines: Eugene Smith).

Tim Dunkin
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html
Based largely on Jim Snapp, above, well-written with addtions.

Floyd Nolen Jones - Ripped Out of the Bible
http://www.av1611bible.org/sources/ripped.pdf
The external evidence is massive. Not only is the Greek manuscript attestation ratio over 600 to 1 in support of the verses (99.99%) – around 8,000 Latin mss, about 1,000 Syriac versions as well as all of the over 2,000 known Greek Lectionaries contain the verses.2 ...2 Only one Latin mss, one Syriac and one Coptic version omit Mark 9-20. ..Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering's taped interview before the Majority Text Society in Dallas, Texas (Summer of 1995).

Vance Ferrell p. 309-317 (pdf)
http://www.pathlights.com/onlinebook...anslations.pdf

Theodore Letis
http://www.btinternet.com/~s.j.macka...ticles/crn.pdf
(Quotes Aland and Metzger that the ending is 'canonical')

Article on Christadephian forum
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/f...p?showtopic=56
"Harry Whittaker has a decent essay on the long ending of Mark at the end of Studies in the Gospels"

Harry Whittaker - Studies in the Gospels.
http://www.christadelphianbooks.org/haw/sitg/index.html (WIP online)
"Reason for missing verses in the first place
End of a daily reading mrked out in the text with "arche" (beginning) and "to telos" (the end) - Codex Beza has "to telos" at Mark 14v41. Many MS do have "to telos" at the end of Mark 16v8 => scribe omitted last verses taking "to telos" to mean end of genuine Gospel rather than end of reading."

================================================== =====
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES OF INTEREST
================================================== =====
Peter Kirby's site has the e-catena
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...na/mark16.html

Roger Pearse discusses Tertullian references
(I've done a little work on this also)
http://www.tertullian.org/scripture.htm

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

TheologyWeb Discussions (Jim Snapp involved as "Waterrock")
The authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 - 8/04
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...+twelve+verses
Is Mark 16:9-20 In the Original?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...+twelve+verses

================================================== ===
DEAN JOHN BURGON - LAST TWELVE VERSES
================================================== ===

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Pub...ns/dbs1139.htm
http://www.sovgracepub.com/sgpbooks/1589600142.htm
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark By Dean John William Burgon

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...96925?v=glance
Also included in this edition is a helpful 36-page summary with commentary by Rev. D.A. Waite, president of The Dean Burgon Society.

http://www.sovgracepub.com/SGPBooks/...?ID=1589600142
", Dean John W. Burgon remarks: ''It is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue . . . But the case is altogether different, as all must see, when it is proposed to get rid of twelve verses which for 1,700 years and upwards have formed the conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel, . . . . This assumption that a work which has held to be a complete work for seventeen centuries and upwards was originally incomplete, of course requires proof. . . . I can only imagine one other thing which could induce us to entertain such an opinion [to brand Mark 16:9-20 as spurious] and that would be the general consent of MSS., Fathers, and Versions'.........John W. Burgon (1813-1888) was the deadliest opponent of Westcott and Hort’s unfounded theories. He still remains the biggest obstacle for the textual critics."

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Book...ion/mw-07.html
"The consentient witness of the manuscripts is even extraordinary. With the exception of the two uncial manuscripts which have just been named (Vatican and Sinaitic) there is not one Codex in existence, uncial or cursive (and we are acquainted with at least eighteen other uncials and about six hundred cursives of this Gospel,) which leaves out the last twelve verses of St. Mark. The omission of these twelve verses, I repeat, in itself destroys our confidence in Codex B (Vaticanus) and Codex Sinaiticus...... Nothing whatever which has hitherto come before us lends the slightest countenance to the modern dream that St. Mark's Gospel, as it left the hands of the inspired author, ended abruptly at verse 8...... The notion is an invention, a pure imagination of the critics, ever since the days Of Griesbach."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...96925?v=glance
Unholy Hands on the Bible (Unholy Hands on the Bible) -by Dean J. Burgon
Includes the Last Twelve Verses, Jay Green's editing and printing aspects have been criticized, including by Professor Robinson.
Jay Green's blurb on both books.
http://www.chrlitworld.com/clwmagazine/SGP02-09.pdf

================================================== =====
ADDITIONAL SCHOLARSHIP NOTES OF INTEREST
================================================== =====
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark- Farmer, W.R. (1974)
"W.R. Farmer has argued that the evidence indicates that Mark was the author of 16:9-20, but that he likely penned it before the composition of the Gospel record. He feels that the disputed text was added to the end of the Gospel manuscript at a later time" - Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier

Croy, N. Clayton - The Mutilation of MarkÂ’s Gospel
“"The Reasons for the Shift,” Croy contends that the complete turn in scholarship had less to do with the introduction of new evidence that suggested Mark 16:8 was the original ending of the Gospel and more to do with the imposition of new methodologies. "

E.C. Colwell, "Mark 16:9-20 in the Armenian Version", Journal of Biblical Literature, 1937, p. 384 -- referenced in Tim Dunkin article

Steven Lynn Cox,
A History and Critique of Scholarship Concerning the Markan Endings

================================================== =====
TWO PAPERS ON INTERNAL EVIDENCES
================================================== =====

The Style Of The Long Ending Of Mark - by Bruce Terry
http://matthew.ovc.edu/terry/articles/mkendsty.htm

Warren Gage - Surprising Case for the Longer Ending of Mark's Gospel,
(critiqued by Holding)

================================================== =====
HISTORY ON IIDB
================================================== =====

We previously discussed this on another thread --
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=125251
and I gave you some references. Your ditty humor vis a vis Dunkin was a little strange, as Tim Dunkin gives Jim Snapp credit right on the top of his page, and adds a lot of addtional material, writing very well.

================================================== =====
SOME REFERENCES POSSIBLY MOSTLY BASED ON DEAN JOHN BURGON
================================================== =====

Thompson, The Controversy Concerning the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to Mark, Surrey: The Bible Christian Unity Fellowship, pp. 39-40; reprint of four articles which appeared in The Bible League Quarterly, London, 1973

"The Authenticity of the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Mark," Article #106 (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, nd).

Counterfeit or Genuine? edited by David Otis Fuller

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

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Vorkosigan

Looking back on my question, I can see that it was not clear. What I really want to know is whether you have a modern reference that supports Burgon's specific claim that (1) there is an empty spot in Vaticanus that (2) was there for the Long Ending.

Vorkosigan

Haran

Here is a reproduction of the ending of Mark in Vaticanus...(there is space at the end of the middle column and in the whole third column).

http://alpha.reltech.org:8083/cgi-bi...3Tisch?seq=117

The following web page argues that the blank space at the end of Mark is not enough room for the longer ending (the different endings have been added to the images, so you have to look for where they start in the middle column).

http://www.waynecoc.org/Vaticanus.html

I don't know how valid this is as a reconstruction, but it is interesting.

Vorkosigan

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. I kinda figured Burgon's argument was slanted, but wanted to know how.

Vorkosigan