Vorkosigan

We don't! But Powell's idea is based on sound stylistic analysis. See the site I referenced. You might change your mind about Mark ending at 16:8.

Vorkosigan

WinAce

I know. But they also lack pretty much all the juicy details in Mark. Or could you provide me with the book, chapter and verse where he mentions...

• The empty tomb.
• The massive paranormal phenomena going on around the time of Jesus' death.
• The post-resurrection appearances in detail like the gospels.

Iasion

Greetings Layman,

thanks for your reply

As far as I can tell, P75 (c.200CE) has the "well-pleased" version (the NA27 apparatus does not make it clear).

Vaticanus (B) is rather late in this context (4th century) and probably also has "well-pleased".

Ehrman says the "this day" version is the most common version in the early centuries (but cites few witnesses, just D and it, and several fathers).

He specifically claims that P4 is the only early manuscript that has the "well pleased" version - which suggests P75 does not - I have been unable to find a facsimile or transcript of P75, perhaps someone here can help?


Well, according to my Interlinear of NA26,

the standard version "in thee I am well pleased"
can be found in :
KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NEB, TEV, NJBmg, NRSV

but the variant version "this day have I begotten thee"
can be found in :
RSVmg, NEBmg, NJB, NRSVmg


Fair enough, I provided no argument.

Ehrman argues that the "this day" version is the original, and that our current "well-pleased" version was the later modification, changed to deal with adoptionism.

The "this day" version is NOT limited to heretics - on the contrary, many of the earliest and most important church documents and fathers knew this version :

2nd C :
G.Hebrews - early/mid 2nd C.
G.Ebionites - early/mid 2nd C. - BOTH versions
Justin - mid 2nd C.
ClementAlex - late 2nd C.

3rd C. :
Didascalia
Acts of Peter and Paul,
Origen,
Methodius,

4th C. :
Lactantius,
Hilary,
Juvencus,
Tyconius,
Const. Holy Apostles

5th C. :
Augustine

Justin is one of the most important of church fathers - he is the first to cite large amounts of Gospel material (much of it variant) - he knew the "this day" version.

ClementAlex was a prominant father - he knew the "this day" version.

Augustine is the most ortho of the dox - he knew the "this day" version and had to explain it away as a kind of "eternal day".

Its true that many and later writers have the standard version, but it appears this version was a later modification.

Iasion

BadBadBad

Pigs might dance with unicorns? No, that could never happen. Now 2000 demon possessed pigs running off a cliff, well now that's different. It could happen, sure why not, and we have evidence for that in the same testamonies that bring us the resurrection. I'd say Mike_d has more credibility asserting this verse was added than Matthew saying that Jesus was resurrected. At least Mike didn't also assert that his magical dog added the line at the same time.

You guys are going over my head with a lot of this, but it's very interesting. What this says to me is that no one really knows how the story ended. I think that says a lot about the credibility of the Gospels. Unknown authors, incredulous stories, major differences between the stories, and now, the actual story of witnesses seeing the resurrection is missing, and a forgery left in it's place. Then we have Matthew and Luke. They virtually copied Mark line for line. That has never been credible corroboration for me. To me, that doesn't leave very much to support what I understand was a dime a dozen claim, at the time, of resurrected sons of god.

If 16:9-20 isn't the original, it's definitely a forgery in my mind. Let me give you an analogy. Let's say my grandmother dies without a will. I look through her belongings, and I find one, but it's missing the last page. The part where she leaves it all to me. I didn't want to deceive anyone, I just wanted to carry out her wishes. So I added what was on the last page, the best I could, out of memory. Then I left it in her belongings for the rest of the family to find and hopefully presume it was authentic. Now my brother is claiming he has an earlier version without the last page. Is my version a forgery?

In the case of the Bible, the "holy" preservation of this document is supposedly more reliable than signatures on a will. That's a main issue for it's credibility. On the will, we hopefully have living witnesses, and we can probably verify the signatures too. In the case of Mark, we find out that not only its author but the preservation and integrity of the document as well is just as uncertain as it's incredulous stories.

YHWHtruth

Some have thought that Mark 16:8, which ends with the words "and they told nobody anything, for they were in fear," is too abrupt to have been the original ending of this Gospel. However, that need not be concluded in view of Mark's general style. Also, the fourth-century scholars Jerome and Eusebius agree that the authentic record closes with the words "for they were in fear."-Jerome, letter 120, question 3, as published in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vienna and Leipzig, 1912, Vol. LV, p. 481; Eusebius, "Ad Marinum," I, as published in Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 1857, Vol. XXII, col. 937.

There are a number of manuscripts and versions that add a long or a short conclusion after these words. The long conclusion (consisting of 12 verses) is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript, the Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus, and the Bezae Codices. It also appears in the Latin Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Syriac Peshitta. But it is omitted in the Sinaitic Manuscript, the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, the Sinaitic Syriac codex, and the Armenian Version. Certain late manuscripts and versions contain the short conclusion. The Codex Regius of the eighth century C.E. has both conclusions, giving the shorter conclusion first. It prefixes a note to each conclusion, saying that these passages are current in some quarters, though it evidently recognized neither of them as authoritative.

In commenting on the long and short conclusions of the Gospel of Mark, Bible translator Edgar J. Goodspeed noted: "The Short Conclusion connects much better with Mark 16:8 than does the Long, but neither can be considered an original part of the Gospel of Mark."-The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament, 1944, p. 127.

Max

YHWHtruth

A common charge against the genuineness of the long ending of Mark being original is that it contains 16 words that are not found in the undisputed section of Mark (1:1-16:8).


Of those 16, 13 are used only once. In postings in July and August, I showed that in the 661 undisputed verses of Mark, there are 555 words used only once in Mark.


This leaves three words used only in this section. Two (APISTEW and QEAOMAI) are used twice in the long ending and one (POREUOMAI) is used three times.


I have completed my analysis of words that are used more than once within a twelve verse span of text and only within that span in Mark. There are 77 such words in the undisputed verses of Mark plus 5 proper nouns. If the selection is limited to a six verse span (the largest span actually used in 16:9-20), the number of words drops to 58 plus 3 names. The following chart shows the distribution:


Twelve Verse Spread Six Verse Spread
Times Used words names words names
2 times 53 2 42 1
3 times 14 2 11 1
4 times 4 1 4 1
5 times 5 - - -
6 times 1 - 1 -


The long ending of Mark has a unique-words-used-more-than-once to verse ratio of .25. For chapters this ratio varies from 0 for chapter 10 (with no such words) to .25 for chapter 2 (7 such words in 28 verses). The most notable section is 2:18-22 with a ratio of 1 (5 such words in 5 verses: NHSTEUW [6 times], NUMFIOS [3 times], PALAIOS [3 times], NEOS [twice], and ASKOS [4 times]). This section also contains at least 7 words that are used only once in Mark, including 2 h.l. (I'm having trouble deciding whether hRHGNUMI in Mk. 2:22 and hRHSSW in Mk. 9:18 are the same or different words. Moulton & Geden and Kubo list them as the same, while Clapp, Friberg, & Friberg list
them separately.

Max

sargasso_see

Hi. You've got lots of great, free and open-minded discussions going on in this forum. The whole world should be infidel. :notworthy

My question is this: Is Aleph and B the strongest argument against Mar 16:9-20? Maybe these verses' 'absence' is a non-issue because practically every Christian site on google considers 'A' and B garbage-the oldest existing copy of 'A' was actually found in someone's garbage. Thanks to the KJV pre-eminence issue, the so-called Minority Texts are also called "depraved", "the work of Satan", "written by godless Egyptian cultists"-I'm surprised aliens aren't involved.

But I'm not asking because of the word of a bunch of radicals. More well-considered commentary exists:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

The reason I'm asking is because I have no way to confirm the truth of these arguments. So to those who are able, how should we go forward?

Layman

And thank you for yours.

From what I have heard, P75 uses "well-pleased." That's a general impression though, if you have specific evidence to the contrary I'd like to learn more.

Vaticanus also uses "well-pleased." As does the Codex Sinaiticus (another manuscript from the 300s).

And I find it interesting that you now characterize Vaticanus as "rather late." You yourself relied on the Codex Bezae (a Fifth Century document) and "Old Latin Manuscripts" (no doubt even later than Bezae) and characterized them as "early manuscripts."

Now, when I introduce several important manuscripts that predate anything you have even mentioned by a hundred years and more, mine are "rather late."

That sounds very selective to me.

Yes, the NRSV prefers the "well-pleased" text.

I believe Ehrman is mistaken. The "well-pleased" tradition is odlder and supported by earlier manuscript evidence than the adoptionist variant. It's more likely that those with adoptionist leanings or sympathies altered the text to suit their own purposes.

I think this reinforces my points. The Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Ebionites are the earliest attestations to the adoptionist text, though I should point out there is no manuscript evidence for either one, and they are also the product of Jewish Christians who would favor an adoptionist interpretation of Jesus' messianic nature.

That later church fathers had to deal with, or sometimes cited to, the "this day" version does not support your point at all. There is no dispute that it was interjected by the second century. Just as there is no dispute that the "well-pleased" version was too, as demonstrated by its use in Mark and Matthew, as well as its earlier manuscript evidence.

Another huge blow to this theory is that Mark and Matthew, which substantially predate the Gospel of the Hebrews and Ebionites, use the well-pleased version. Indeed, given the agreement of Matthew and Luke with Mark, it is likely that both used Mark as the source for this material. That Matthew and Mark both use "well-pleased" indicate the very low likelihood that Luke went his own way and used the adoptionist variance. Additionally, there are NO variants that I am aware of to the Marcan and Matthean textual traditions on this verse. They all attest to "well-pleased."

Finally, it seems odd that Luke, who highlights the virgin birth of Jesus, would turn around and portray an adoptionist attitude towards Jesus messianic nature.

In sum, the earliest manuscripts support "well-pleased." The earlier gospels of Mark and Matthew support "well-pleased." Luke's dependence on Mark supports "well-pleased." And the importance Luke attaches to the virgin birth supports "well-pleased." It appears that it was the so-called "heretics" who were monkeying with the manuscripts on this one.

Vinnie

But wouldn't someone reading Mark and writing an appropriate ending get Mark's style to a a degree? Plus isn't it Powell's argument that Mark's original ending was redacted and was attached to GJohn?. Isn't it then, hard to find the exact wording of the alleged original Marcan ending? What criteria or methodology is used to determine what is the Pre-Markan ending before John's redactor got hold of it? The same as the one which reconstructs the TF before an early Christian editor got a hold of Josephus?

Is it that similar to Mark's vocab and style?

You also said the ending is similar to Lukes? But doesn't Matther, overall, follow Mark's whole PN pretty closely? Why then do Matthew and Luke diverge in such a manner where Mark leaves off? If there was an original ending I am not sure of any possible reason why Matthew (who reprints 90% of Mark and follows his PN EXTREMELY closely) would diverge where Luke would not diverge (when Luke reprints only 60% of Mark view on the PN from Matthew and Mark's view which is so close as to be inseperable.

Not to mention that we cannot rule out that someone may have just attached another ending to Mark's Gospel (a fifth?). Maybe that explains why thi lost ending never gained footing? It was known to have been attached? This is not the only solution of course but I am still convinced 16:8 is the orignal ending of GMark. I'll read the article sooner or later though. If I wasn't out of black ink I'd print it out and that would propel me to read it sonner!

Vinnie

CX

I recommend that anyone interested in the Marcan ending question read Bruce Metzger's section on it in The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration He discusses at length the 4 known endings and the MSS attestation for each. His ultimate conclusion is that the ending we have in canonical GMk was not originally part of that gospel nor are any of the other 3 known variants.