Steven Avery

The ending of Mark is one of those items that the more you study, the more overwhelming is the evidence for the Traditional text. And the more absurd the alexandrian textcrit attack (embraced of course, as a tactical tool, by skeptics like Joe, who refuse to address the true believers with the text that they actually defend).

"The ending of Mark is the most notable manuscript variation in the entire New Testament".

> Praxeus
> "I see that you really didn't address the fact that we have a dozen early
> church writer usages of the ending of Mark. Not surprising."
Joe, I really didn't bother, since most of this is rather irrelevant. You ignore one to two dozen usages of the ending of Mark by early church writers, even as early as the 2nd century.

We all know there was a question among some early writers, and you apparently even missed the Jim Snapp discussion of Eusebius and Jerome vis a vis the historical question, and then you misrepresented Jerome as well.

Jerome is "in my favor" since he considered the ending of Mark as scripture, and you tried to use him in an (abbreviated) format. He clearly acknowledged the ending of Mark as scripture.

Everybody much later than Jerome is not of much import, on either 'side', since the manuscripts themselves become overwhelming in favor of the ending, in all languages.

Notice that my one to two dozen writer references were almost all pre-Jerome.

(btw, the Metzger evidence of silence use of Origen is weak and misleading, first we are dealing with only extant works, and Origen has references that do in fact fit very well the ending of Mark, negating the supposed silence, making his testimony equivocal)
"in Against Celsus VII:17 he mentioned that signs of the destruction of Satan's kingdom include deliverance from the power of demons; this may be an allusion to Mark 16:17. He mentions signs again at the beginning of Book VIII."

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

Right :-) Clement is one of the weak evidences from silence. The notation on this thread was originally put in by Amaleq13, and I didn't check Amaleq's references, just added to them, per his request. My bad.

Now shall we go on to the clear positive evidences ?

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

Sure, my pleasure, some are extremely clear. For your pleasure, here are nine full quotes. And then lots of other references, including from UBS apparatus, and some special references.

================================================== =====
NINE FULL EARCH CHURCH WRITER QUOTATIONS FROM MARK ENDING
================================================== =====

Irenaeus (wrote c. 180) - Against Heresies, Book III, 10:5-6, h
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P7435_1989248

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool."

Mark 16:19
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Also Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II - below
================================================== =====

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book V - XIV
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf0...#P6203_2174932

And when He was risen from the dead, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, then to Cleopas in the way, and after that to us His disciples, who had fled away for fear of the Jews, but privately were very inquisitive about Him.

Mark 16:9
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.

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

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book VI-XV
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf0...#P6455_2237399

For the Lord says: "Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven." And again: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

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

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book VIII-Chapter I
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf0...#P7001_2348812

With good reason did He say to all of us together, when we were perfected concerning those gifts which were given from Him by the Spirit: "Now these signs shall follow them that have believed in my name: they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them: they shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Mark 16:17-18
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.

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

Treatise on Rebaptism (A.D. 250) - IX
http://divinity.library.vanderbilt.e...Rebaptism.html
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-148.htm

And in addition to these things, all the disciples also judged the declaration of the women who had seen the Lord after the resurrection to be idle tales; and some of themselves, when they had seen Him, believed not, but doubted; and they who were not then present believed not at all until they had been subsequently by the Lord Himself in all ways rebuked and reproached; because His death had so offended them that they thought that He had not risen again, who they had believed ought not to have died, because contrary to their belief He had died once.

Mark 16:14
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.

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

Aphraates (aka Aphrahat), 345, Demonstration One: Of Faith,
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/370101.htm
http://www.piney.com/FathAphrahatDemon.html

"And again He said this: 'This shall be the sign for those that believe; they will speak with new tongues and shall cast out demons, and they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall be made whole.'"

Mark 16:17-18
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.

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

Ambrose (c. 390) -The Prayer of Job and David).

Therefore, it was with good reason that the Lord became a stage, so that the word of the Lord might prepare such stages for Himself; of these He says, "In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak in new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them." Indeed they took up serpents, when His holy Apostle cast out the spiritual forces of wickedness from their hiding places in the body by breathing on them and did not feel deadly poisons. When the viper came forth from the bundle of sticks and bit Paul, the natives, seeing the viper hanging from his hand, thought he would suddenly die. But he stood unafraid; he was unaffected by the wound, and the poison was not infused into him. (Saint Ambrose, The Prayer of Job and David, 4:1:4.)

"Ambrose - quotes from Mark 16:9-20 repeatedly"
================================================== ======

Augustine (c 420 AD) Homilies On The Epistle of John To The Parthians (IV:2):- http://www.godrules.net/library/fathers/nf07s135.htm

Ye heard while the Gospel was read, Go preach the Gospel to the whole creation which is under heaven. Consequently the disciples were sent everywhere with signs and wonders to attest that what they spake, they had seen.

"Augustine ..used Mark 16:9-20 in Easter-time sermons, showing that by the early 400's the Long Ending was established in the lectionary in North Africa.
..quotes from Mark 16:9-20 repeatedly"

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

Vincentius of Thibaris (258) -Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf0...#P9407_2933203

"We have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept commanded to His apostles, saying, 'Go ye, lay on hands in My name, expel demons.' And in another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'"
(uses Mark 16:15-18, less definite than those above)

================================================== =====
UBS (omitting those on both sides-Eusebius,Epiphanius,Severus, Jerome)
================================================== =====
Asterius (c. 340)
Marcus-Eremit (pre-450)
Severian (c. 400 AD)
Didymus of Alexandria (390) dub :-)

================================================== ===
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES (per Jim Snapp)
================================================== ===
Hilary of Poitiers (pre-360)
John Chrysostom's Lectionary (pre-360)
John Cassian (430)
Nestorius & Cyril of Alexandria (pre-444) Cyril quotes Nestorius' 16:20.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 450)
Ephrem (Ephraim) Syrus (370)
Basil (pre-379)

================================================== =====
DIATESSORAN
================================================== =====
Tatian (wrote c. 172) - Diatessaron used the Long Ending, as shown by the Syriac manuscript of Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron, the Arabic Harmony, and other sources.

================================================
EARLY AND DISPUTABLE - JUSTIN, EPISTULA, HIPPOLYTUS
================================================
Peter Kirby : http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-33724.html
A good number of scholars think that the passage was also known to Justin Martyr (c. 155) and to the Epistula Apostolorum (c. 145)

Justin Martyr - First Apology, ch. 45, language reminiscent of Mark 16:20.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apostolorum.html
The Epistula Apostolorum
The women go to the tomb "weeping and mourning," Epist. 9; Mary goes to the Apostles "as they mourned and wept," Mk.xvi.10.]

Hippolytus (c. 230) - Apostolic Tradition 32:1, seems to have used part of Mark 16:18 describing the positive effects of partaking of the Lord's Supper.

===============================================
TERTULLIAN - MULTIVERSE REFERENCES
===============================================

Tertullian (c. 220) has a number of references. Most can be considered as from alternate sources, but together they offer strong evidence.

Tertullian Against Praxeas 2:1 - (or creedal summary..original source Mark)
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf0...P10885_3057808
we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father,

Tertullian - Tertullian A Treatise on the Soul - De Anima 25:8
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf0...m#P2823_965593
"and that not of one only, as in the case of Socrates' own demon; but of seven spirits as in the case of the Magdalene"
Mark 16:9 (and Luke 8:1-2)
he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had case seven devils.

Tertullian - An Answer to the Jews Chapter 5, Of Sacrifices
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf0...m#P2113_718509
Again, in the Psalms, David says: "Bring to God, ye countries of the nations"-undoubtedly because "unto every land" the preaching of the apostles had to "go out"
Mark 16:15-16 ,Matthew 28:19-20, Luke 24:45-48, Psalm 19:4-Romans10:18

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf0...P10885_3057808
Tertullian Against Praxeas 30:5
"He sitteth at the Father's right hand " (Colossians 3:1, I Peter 3:22)

===============================================
IRENAEUS - MULTIVERSE REFERENCE
===============================================
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book2.html
Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II

For the Lord, through means of suffering, "ascending into the lofty place, led captivity captive, gave gifts to men," and conferred on those that believe in Him the power "to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy," Mark 16:17 Luke 10:19

================================================== =
CONCLUSION
================================================== =

There are some additional references, such as various apocryphal writings, the detailed analysis of Jerome, the Apoctriticus of Marcius Magnes, however the ones above should indicate quite conclusively the consistent and varied usage of the ending of Mark during the first centuries.

An analysis of the manuscripts shows the same, in that case I defer to the previous links, since they cover that quite in full.

Here is a good, clear, straightforward summary of the manuscript evidence.

http://www.thechristadelphians.org/f...t=ST&f=19&t=56
* With a handful of exceptions, every single gospel MS, whether uncial or cursive, includes the 12 verses.
* The ancient versions are equally emphatic - various Syriac versions, all but one of the Old Latin MSS, the Memphitic and Thebaic versions of Egypt, Jerome's Vulgate and the Gothic version (going back to the 4th century and beyond) all testify to the general acceptance of Mark 16.9-20 by widely separated branches of the early church

I understand that it is important for someone like Joe to attempt to disallow the simple usage of the Received Text Scriptures by believers.

However, once you look at the true evidences, the game is transparent, and shot. The attempt to tell the true believer that his Scripture is wrong, that he should not have the ending of Mark, or the Pericope Adultera, is zilch, nada, dead in the water. Caveat emptor.

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

John A. Broussard

Your heavy reliance on Tertullian who said, "I believe because it is absurd," makes me wonder if you don't share his view.

Steven Avery

Am I "Adverseus Tertullian" ? :-) On many doctrinal matters yes. However, which Tertullian, the subordinist incipient Trinitarian, or perhaps the Montanist charismatic ?

(I will basically take a pass on your 'absurd' comment, and take your question in a meatier way, since hopefully this forum can respect those who actually believe the Scriptures, the Word that folks here struggle so mightily to place as non-special, non-authoritative).

Anyway, I do hope you understand that when showing the usage by early church writers of any passage you will often have opposite doctrinal views, and strong and weak arguments, referencing the same verse. Example.. while the Johannine Comma is often considered Trinitarian today, it was quoted by Priscillian, executed as a non-Trinitarian heretic. Whatever ones views of Priscillian (he was accused of sorcery and such as well), pro, con, or mixed, his citation is extremely significant ... as a citation of the Scripture text.

Same here on the ending of Mark for Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine and and all the others above, whether one agrees or disagrees with their various doctrines, or whatever they say about 'absurd'.

btw, in my experience Roger Pearse has quite properly and sucessfully shown a lot of these one-liner accusations to be gerry-rigged, such as the 'eusebius is a liar' accusation. I wonder if he has commented on the 'absurd' one you reference, have you checked ? Are you giving real context ?

Now, if you have a more specific, substantial question about Tertullian, I'll try to answer, doctrinally, textually, or whatever :-)

For our purposes in this thread on the ending of Mark, Tertullian is often interesting on quoting verses (ie. which text was he using). e.g. He makes an allusion, perhaps, to the Johannine Comma. However, he does not reference 1 Timothy 3:16, another fundamental and fascinating textual discussion.

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

Vorkosigan

Prax, the external evidence is not relevant. Mark obviously lost its ending quite early, and had another substituted for it. That the spurious ending was known early is not a point in its favor; it simply tells us that the ancients had texts with the spurious ending(s) included.

Actually, as Weeden and others have argued, Mark invented Judas. Weeden discusses the issue here.

I don't know why you need to talk like this. The fact is that As Robert Fowler (Let the Reader Understand) has pointed out, if the reader had no idea from the other gospels that Judas had killed himself, he would have to assume that Judas was among those supposed to meet Jesus in Galilee. Mark never says otherwise; hence, the reference to the eleven in the Longer Ending is non-Markan.

As numerous exegetes have commented, paradidomi means deliver (up), not betrayed. Koine already has a perfectly good work for betray. Hence, whether Judas "betrays" in Mark is an open question. The word appears only in Luke 6:16 and in a variant of Mark 14:10 (D). There's a good review of the issues surrounding Judas' role in Mark in Klassen, William. 1998. The Authenticity of Judas' Participation in the Arrest of Jesus. In B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998) p. 389-410. Klassen himself accepts the betrayal of Judas as historical, but points out that exegetes have had great difficulty in coming to any consensus on the issue.

Perhaps the cobwebs are not in my brain, but in your collection of materials on the Gospel of Mark, eh?

The basic issue is the internal evidence, and the text critical issues. (1) the style is non-Markan and (2) many ancient texts mark this ending as spurious.

It seems that you simply duck the issues and then fling insults..

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Vorkosigan,

So Mark invented Judas not to betray Jesus but to take responsibility for the necessary "handing over" required by Scripture?

aChristian

It is not obvious to me that Mark's ending was changed. Produce some evidence.

He is mentioned in more than one gospel, but even if Mark was the only one to mention him, Mark was accepted by the early church (many of whom lived through the events) as an accurate record. How could he invent him? No reasonable person would believe him.


This is silly. Mark doesn't have to say otherwise. First of all the reader did know about Judas, not only from the other gospels, but from the many people who lived through the events. It would be hard to find a Christian who didn't know about it. Just because Mark doesn't mention Judas' death doesn't mean he didn't know about it. He probably expected his readers to know it after hearing the events related by eyewitnesses for the last 30 years. Hence, the reference to the eleven agrees with what everyone knew to be the case.

The word is used in Matt. 26:15 when Judas agrees to deliver up Jesus for money (ie., betray) and in Luke 22:4 where Judas agrees to betray Jesus. Thayer translates it as "to deliver up treacherously, ie., by betrayal". Even if you translate it as deliver up, he was "delivered up" for money, in secret, and when he delivered him up, he delivered him up to an armed mob. Sounds like betrayal to me. To state otherwise is to miss the obvious.


The basic issue is that the gospel was accepted by the eyewitness as truthful. I know of no internal evidence that contradicts this.

Steven Avery

Probably a smart fall-back position after we examine both the manuscripts and the early church writers and see that the external evidence is truly overwhelming for the traditional ending. However, that was not the view that Joe was trying to foist on the forum, by starting from the 'modern scientific textcrit' approach and even skewering that position.
Quite early truly has to be amazingly early, once we see the early second century usage of the traditional ending. Tis simply a theory of unbelievers, with no real basis whatsoever. Dropping of endings and sections and verses is a far more likely and understandable manuscript history relationship in almost all cases where one version has text missing, such as here. (And once the text is dropped, then the couple of very minor oddball re-add attempts arose due to awkardness.) The traditional ending however was simply overwhelming in manuscript and writer references.
The traditional ending (not the 'spurious ending', lets not play circle games) was referenced again and again by early writers, way before any manuscripts that we know of had it omitted.
This is in the category of the hundreds of theories that go for forgery, fraud, fabrication as the underlying NT paradigm. If I accepted this starting point, I would probably be out partying or something, and not writing about NT textual theories. Personally, I really don't think the proponents of these theories really *believe* them, they just want to offer some alternative to the authority of the NT text.
When he discusses the Christology of Mark it is rather interesting, until we hit the obvious circularity (from the standpoint of this thread) ==
"The christology of Mark is, in my view, clearly lower than Matthew or Luke, for Jesus never makes an appearance as the risen Lord, as he does in the other canonical Gospels." .. sure .....
a) There is no ending of Mark becaue he has a low Christology
b) Mark has a low Christology because he doesn't mention the risen lord.
Enough of this circularity, time to go on.
Granting the author no license or liberty whatsoever. Even putting aside possible multi-gospel referencing, there is nothing difficult within Mark in dropping the betrayer from the count of apostles. Logical and understandable literary style. http://www.donaldsensing.com/2003/04...raitor-to.html
Was Judas Iscariot really a traitor to Christ? Or was he actually a secret accomplice?
"My Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon indicates the word is multivalent (as are so many Greek words) and betrayal is one of several meanings the word implies. Context is everything."

To blithely say the word paradidomi does NOT mean "betrayed" appears to be a kindergarten type of Greek---> English blunder. See below where this is discussed on b-greek. Specifics, please, what verb would you want to use ? See article above.

Or As R. T. France puts it .. " Luke, however, uses prodotas in parallel with his uses of paradidomi elsewhere (Lk. 6:16) without any apparent awareness of a difference in meaning, and it may well be asked how 'handing over' a person to his enemies differs significantly from 'betrayal'

Or.. http://forum.jerusalemperspective.co...712d14c55c86fa
"paradidomi" means to "turn over, give over to another's power. In other words Judas was turning a friend over to the "power" of another which was in opposition to Jesus. This seems to be a clear betrayal of one's friendship. Judas knew the Romans were anti-Jesus and knew they would want to kill him. Without Judas help the Romans may not have arrested the right one.
Webster's says "betray" means to be disloyal to and that is exactly what Judas did. "

And also
2Timothy 3:4
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

This is the noun that Luke uses in tandem with paradidomi as A. T. France notice above, basically deep-sixing the whole argument (and prodotes is not used in any verbal form in the NT) .

This was also discussed on b-greek (a rather eclectic crew doctrinally) with a rather surprisingly (for b-greek) unanimous conclusion... Starting at..
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...ay/029988.html and subsequent posts.

" LSJ notes that "betray" is indeed one of the senses with which PARADIDOMI as used. So does Spicq."

"it sounds as though he/she might have a theological, rather than a semantical agenda..."

"the notion of "betray" seems fairly well established in the literature in general."

"What he did,...could certainly be called 'betrayal," but it couldn't, in English at least, be called "handing over"

"It looks like your recent author (Klassen) has made a common mistake, namely to look at individual words only rather than groups of words and meaning in context."

"when PARADIDWMI is used as a divalent verb with an agent and a patient, it corresponds pretty much to "betray" in English. Whenever we hear of Judas betraying Jesus, the construction has a subject and an object, but no indirect object. Judas betrayed Jesus."

"it is quite proper for most commentators to read that sequence as recounting betrayal." (Raymond Brown review)

Bottom line.. none of the Greek scholars/experts felt there was any merit to claiming paradidomi should not or cannot mean betray.

Let me suggest some good natural grain beverage and a brisk morning walk.

Even that is not true. A handful of ancient manuscripts omit the ending (perhaps more than a handful in Armenian..wow) and the huge majority of manuscripts in all languages and textlines and geographical locales simply have the traditional ending.

This whole argument fails miserably on external evidence, on both major aspects, manuscripts and early church writers, and it fails miserably on a real text critical review.

And it is easy to see (to many eyes at least) that the internal evidence simply supports the traditional ending, because it simply does not make a lot of sense to have an awkward, abrupt ending before the occasion of the risen Lord. One can see why non-believers or skeptics or ebionites might take a differing view of the basic internal evidence, as their weltanschauung is one of biblical disharmony, or a human-only Jesus, so they like a strange and abrupt Mark ending. As we saw with Joe trying to assume such an ending and then coming to all sorts of additional anti-Gospel conclusions based on his own ultra-dubious assumption.

And "style" arguments are notoriously squirrelly and self-serving, and they also generally need a large sample size and very easily get skewered by aspects like dictation to a scribe, dual authorship, cross-language sections, unusual conditions, change of theme and tone, and many other such variants. Even at best they have limited efficacy in analysis, and, sad to say, they appear to become the lodging of textual renegades who simply want to ignore other overwhelming evidences. A creative mind can manufacture these stylistic arguments right and left, and then use the scholarly disinterest they engender as the base of support ("look, you didn't answer a,b,c") .

From my vantage point the whole exercise of skeptics and liberal textcrits trying to convince believers that they should not accept such a wonderful section as the ending of Mark, amply attested to virtually everywhere, just shows the strange days we live in, and the gullibility of many supposed Christians.

Wow, if I have "ducked issues" on this thread, it will be a surprise to those who have seen the ample documentation to refute various ultra-dubious assertions by Joe and yourself. Some of them, if they worked through the details, might be upset with me for NOT ducking the issues.
Anyway, see one example right above, the discussion of "betrayed".

And personally, I do believe that a lot of this argumenation from you two, and the circularity, example above, and the fabrication presumptions to reach your conclusions-- (all to try to excise the ending of Mark from the Bible), these arguments from Joe and yourself are flinging insults at our intelligence and common sense and reasoning and research ability. Even a lot of the skeptics and infidels here I believe have common sense on issues like this one :-) and can tell when they are being snookered.

Joe set up this morass by having the chutzpah to blithely claim that the ending of Mark was added, clearly knowing diddles about the actual external evidences, and you have compounded Joe's scholarly weakness with your internal claims, like references to the fabricated difficulties with the eleven, the Christology circularity of "right hand", and then the mediocre scholarship like Klassen.

And yes, I will acknowledge that in such situations it is difficult to keep a fully respectful response tone.

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

Steven Avery

"skewing" :-)

JoeWallack

"for that which had not been told them shall they see,
and that which they had not heard shall they perceive."


JW:
As we continue our Textbook Example of what Truth-Challenged Advocates for that guy from the Christian Bible whose name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "J" or"Y" haven't been telling us for the last two thousand years.


Praxeus:
"You ignore one to two dozen usages of the ending of Mark by early church writers, even as early as the 2nd century."

"Now shall we go on to the clear positive evidences ?"


JW:
I haven't ignored anything. Like I said, I started with a more important Category of Evidence, Church Fathers who Identified the Issue. Now, on to the "Early", "Clear", "Positive" evidences. Here's what we have so far, in Order:


Clement of Alexandria

Shows no knowledge of the Long Ending (and that's what you get when you believe anything a Moderator says here). I accept that this type of Negative Evidence is weakened with the question, "Would we expect so-and-so to show knowledge". And when it comes to the Church Fathers we should expect very little knowledge. On the other hand, since "Mark" was the first Gospel and post resurrection Elvis Type sightings of Jesus would be the best Evidence Christianity had to offer, there would be some expectation that if "Mark" offered such Evidence it would have been used by the Church Fathers.


Papias.

Shows no knowledge of the Long Ending. We don't have much of what Papias supposedly wrote but Eusebius claimed to be familiar with Papias' writings and Identified "Mark's" ending as an issue so if Papias showed knowledge of the Long Ending Eusebius probably would have noted it.


Justin Martyr

Proxeuc:
"EARLY AND DISPUTABLE - JUSTIN, EPISTULA, HIPPOLYTUS
================================================
Peter Kirby : http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-33724.html
A good number of scholars think that the passage was also known to Justin Martyr (c. 155) and to the Epistula Apostolorum (c. 145)
Justin Martyr - First Apology, ch. 45, language reminiscent of Mark 16:20."


JW:
Justin Martyr Apology 1.45:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

"That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem," is predictive of the mighty, word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere; and though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it."

Justin is claiming prophecy fulfillment from the Jewish Bible here. The closest this gets to a version of the Long Ending is the excerpt:

"which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere"

compared to the 16:20 excerpt:

"And they went out and preached everywhere"

From:

16:20
"And they went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs."

You have the three same words in the Greek but the word order is different. This three word phrase does fit the Long Ending of "Mark" better than the endings of the other Gospellers but it's only three common words of one of the most popular Christian themes that would fit the Theology of every Gospel except, ironically, "Mark's" (that it was the Disciples who spread "The Word").

I tell you the Truth, there is no "clear positive evidence" here.

So in summary, none of the Three (Evidence of the trinity?) Earliest Church Father witnesses show "clear positive evidence" that they knew a Long Ending of "Mark". We have an alarming trend here (for your position) that for the Evidence so far (Textual and Patristic). The Earlier the Evidence, the less knowledge there is of The Long Ending.

Before I continue with subsequent Church Fathers I'll let you respond to all this. If you dare!


"Less invective, more focus on the substance. Leave any old baggage at the door, por favor. It does not enhance a rational argument only serves to distract from any points you hope to make.
-Amaleq13, BC&H moderator"


JW:
Okay, so you were wrong about Clement but maybe you have a point here. Instead of being antagAgnostic towards Schmuelman! maybe I should be polite. Then we could have a meaningful exchange of productive ideas properly conducted in an atmosphere of mutual understanding, trust and sincere desire to learn from one another with good intentions and make the World a better place instead of gravitating lower and lower underneath the other's cesspool motivated only by obsession to prove the other wrong by any meanness possible as opposed to searching for the Truth...(waving arm through air) Naaaah!



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

andrewcriddle

One argument against the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is the extremely abrupt transition between 16:8 and 16:9

literally translated Some translations make it less abrupt by saying and Jesus is actually read by some late manuscripts of 16:9 but there seems no doubt that the word Jesus is not part of the original text.

Another argument is the diversity of textual traditions omitting 16:9-20. As well as the Alexandrian text, the long ending is omitted by the Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac, the original form of the Georgian and probably the earliest form of the separated Gospels in Armenian.

It seems to have been originally only found in the 'Western' type of text and derivatives thereof, such as the Diatessaron.

Additions to the 'Western' text compared to other text types are quite common and usually not authentic

However the 'Western' type of text is found in the majority of pre-Nicene church fathers outside Egypt. Hence we have several references to the long ending of Mark in early patristic quotations.

Andrew Criddle