BadBadBad

I have read claims that the story of the resurrection in Mark is a later addition to the earliest manuscripts. I've read that no respectable scholar believes it was part of the original.

What's the story on this? What is the basis for supporting or denying this claim?

BadBadBad

I read this on a christian site about this:

"One final comment: I do think that it is significant to mention that Mark 16:9-20 is an unusual case. There is only one other major passage that I know of (John 7:53-8:11) that has questions about original authorship. That is very unusual when dealing with ancient writings and I think speaks wonderfully about the way that God has preserved His Word for all people down through many centuries. This is not a debate that should bother a new believer or lead them to question the Bible. It is a debate that is unique among Bible scholars and shows the wonderful care that God has shown to give us His inerrant Word."


So what if it's an "unusual case." It's the original and entire story of the resurrection! This shouldn't bother the believer or lead them to question the Bible?

Layman

Almost all scholars, even conservative and evangelical ones, believe that everything currently after verse 8 is not original to the text. That is, it was probably added sometime in the early to mid second century.

Scholars disagree, however, on whether Mark originally ended at verse 8 or whether it had a longer ending that was lost to history.

keyser_soze

Or added to another gospel.....

Iasion

Greetings brettc,

Yes, G.Mark 16:9 et seq. is suspect - its not present in some early witnessses, here is a brief article I found online :


There are four different endings of Mark within the manuscript tradition. The majority of of both uncials and miniscules contain the long ending which appears in the KJV at 16:9-20. We know from Jerome that the passage definitely existed in some manuscripts by 400CE, and from Tatian's Diatesseron that the passage may have existed in some locales by the end of the second century.

On the other hand, the two oldest manuscripts of Mark's gospel, the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (roughly 350CE), end Mark's gospel at 16:8. In addition to this, 16:9-20 is absent from the Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about 100 Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian translations. In many of the witnesses that include 16:9-20, scribal notes have been left indicating that the passage was absent from the older Greek manuscripts. In many other witnesses to 16:9, the copyist has included the passage in brackets or obeli, a convention used to indicate doubt as to the authenticity of the bracketed passage.

Origin and Clement of Alexandria, both of whom knew Mark's gospel and quoted it frequently in their writings, show no knowledge of the long ending of Mark. Eusebius, in the early fourth century, noted that in nearly all the manuscripts of Mark, at least, in the accurate ones (schedon en apasi tois antigraphois . . . ta goun akribe), the Gospel ends with 16:8. St. Jerome, compiler of the Vulgate, also said around 400CE ("Ad. Hedib.") that the passage was wanting in nearly all Greek manuscripts (omnibus libris poene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus). Victor of Antioch, the first commentator on Mark, regarded 16:8 as the conclusion. The most commonly cited early patristic witness to the Marcan appendix is Iraneaus. Richard Carrier notes:

"Outside the manuscript evidence, which is decisive, the addition seems to be first partly quoted in the late 2nd century, in a passage of Irenaeus (Against All Heresies 3.5), but that text is also a late manuscript (and a Latin translation, not the original Greek) that could have been redacted to match the Gospel that was in circulation at the time. There is evidence of that very fact in the same passage, with regard to his quotation of the first verse of Mark: the words "son of God" are recognized as not being original to that Gospel (cf. ibid. apparatus; also, Bart Ehrman's <The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament 1993, pp. 72-5), and in fact those words appear in only two of three surviving Latin translations and do not exist in the one surviving fragment of that passage in the original Greek."

In addition to this, internal and stylistic indications also argue for the non-Marcan origin of 16:9-20. Metzger, for example, notes that the long ending uses several Greek words not used in the rest of Mark's gospel (p 104). These include apisteo for 'unbelieving,' blapto for 'hurt' or 'injure,' bebaioo for 'confirm' or 'establish,' epakoloutheo for 'accompany,' theaomai for 'look closely' or 'behold,' and several others. 16:9-20 also use two phrases [ tois met anton genomenois & tanasiuon] to designate the disciples which are not only not absent from the rest of Mark, but from the whole New Testament.

Zondervan's NIV Bible Commentary, Vol II, notes of the longer Marcan ending:

"Vocabulary: Of the 75 significant words in vv. 9-20, 15 do not appear elsewhere in Mark and 11 others have a different meaning. The marked difference in vocabulary between 16:9-20 and the rest of Mark's gospel makes it difficult to believe that both came from the same author.

"Style: The connection between v.8 and vv, 9-20 is abrupt and awkward. Verse 9 begins with the masculine nominative participle anastas, which demands for its antecedent 'he,' i.e., Jesus; but the subject of the last sentence of v.8 is the women, not Jesus" (p 204).

(from http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html)


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings again,

One of the most interesting of NT modifications occurs at

LUKE 3:22 " . . . and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"

However,
early manuscripts AND early Christian writers have a rather different version :

" . . . and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"

(which is a from Psalm 2:7)

This adoptionist phrase (meaning God "adopted" Jesus at the baptism, i.e. Jesus became Christ only then) can be found in the following :

Codex Bezae, Old Latin manuscripts,
Justin, ClementAlex, G.Hebrews, Didascalia, G.Ebionites, Origen, Methodius, Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary, Tyconius, Augustine, Acts of Peter and Paul, Const. Holy Apostles.

By the 5th century or so, the modern version came to dominate.


If the miraculous WORDS of GOD to his Son could be changed to suit later dogma, this shows its a story, not history.


Iasion

Layman

What about the earliest New Testament manuscripts, such as Codex Vaticanus? Or p75, which contains Luke 3?

I haven't reasearched this particular verse, but the Revised Standard Version still chooses "well-pleased." Unfortunately, I do not have access to the New Revised Standard Version.

Additionally, you seem to discount the possibility that some ancient texts were altered by adoptionists or were copied from texts that were so influenced.

For example, if the Gospel of the Hebrews really was the gospel version adopted and maintained by an Ebionite-like branch of Christianity, they would be more than happy to add "today I have begotten you." Ditto the "Gospel of the Ebionites" and others who might prefer an adoptionist understanding of Jesus' messiahship.

Simply assuming that the existence of old manuscripts that contradict modern orthodoxy proves that the orthodox traidition is necessarily wrong is not a very persuasive methodlogy.

Therefore, I am genuinely curious which phrase appears in the Codex Vaticanus and p75.

BadBadBad

I guess I'm trying to understand what that means. I read apologetics yesterday that basically say 16:9-20 really was the original ending, it just got left out of some of the earliest manuscripts that survived. I find that kind of astounding to believe that one out of four probably most important passages in the christian Bible were just "left out."

My question is really do virtually all "respectable scholars" believe 16:9-20 was basically a later forgery, or do they believe like the apologetics I read that 16:9-20 probably was the original ending, but just got "left out" of these earlier manuscripts? Or do they just believe we'll never know? You've said that they disagree as to whether there was a longer ending. What's the consensus on what that ending might be?

BadBadBad

To me, the fact that 16:9-20 is missing from these manuscripts is devastating to the credibility of christianity. This plus other "discrepancies" I've read about along the same lines. This is the story of the resurrection though.

I've recently read some debates on the resurrection stories, and much of the debates focused on the credibility of these stories. I'm surprised that the origin of 16:9-20 in Mark never came up. Any explanations for that?

Godless Dave

Here's my explanation: believers aren't interested in learning the truth, they want to hear a story that reinforces that they already believe. Apologists are happy to oblige.