Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in your Bible?

Place to discuss the reasons for our faith (I Peter 3:15)

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in your Bible?

Post by JSM17 » Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:31 pm

Does it belong there? Or does it need to be thrown out, because of what Jesus said about baptism, many seek to dismiss the end of Mark, but the evidence shows that it should be there. So when Jesus said what he said in verses 15, 16 they belong there, and they are synoptic verses of Matt. 28:18. Some proclaim the great commission is calling us to go into the world and baptize people with the Holy Spirit, but I was under the impression that only Jesus could do this. Here are some manuscripts that are for and against Mark 16:9-20, you decide for yourself what belongs! Decide for yourself whether or not when Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved"should be there, whether or not you believe you have the command to go into the world and baptize people with the Holy Spirit thats another post.

In Favour of Mark 16:9-20

Codex Alexandrinus (A) - (5th c. uncial, Byzantine in Gospels)

Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - (5th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) - (5th/6th c. uncial, Western)

K (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)

W (5th c. uncial, generally thought to be Caesarean in Mark 5:31-16:20)

X (10th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caesarean)

Pi (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)

f1 and f13 (total of 16 Caesarean texts, 11th-14th c.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caesarean)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)

1010 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)

The Byzantine textual set

Some of the Greek lectionaries

Opposed to Mark 16:9-20

Codex Sinaiticus (A) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

Codex Vaticanus (B) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

304 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)2

2386 (11th c. miniscule, Byzantine)

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:00 pm

Does it belong there or does it need to be thrown out because of what Jesus said about baptism?

Neither for it is too disputed of a text "no matter what is said in the text".

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

but, "The Scriptures cannot be broken"!

Post by m273p15c » Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:50 am

Marc wrote:Does it belong there or does it need to be thrown out because of what Jesus said about baptism?

Neither for it is too disputed of a text "no matter what is said in the text".
Admittedly, I agree that it is poor debating form to use a disputed text as a primary point, simply because it allows your opponent an opportunity to throw dirt in the air and muddy the issue, but only for that reason.

In this thread, the main thing I would be concerned about is this, "Based on anyone's conclusion regarding the inclusion/rejection of this text, what does that conclusion say about their respect for God and His Word?"
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, wrote: And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, ... having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, because "All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, But the word of the LORD endures forever." Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you. (II Peter 1:17-25)
John, quoting Jesus, wrote:"If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?" (John 10:35-36)
Matthew, recording Jesus' words, wrote:"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." (Matthew 24:35)
I will not deny the possibility that God might allow some minor, inconsequential alterations to creep into the text - maybe to test our faith. However, I cannot see how permitting substantial, fundamental changes into the climax of a gospel can be harmonized with the unbreakable, unchangeable nature of Scriptures!

I am open to reason, but this seems a fundamental division in approaching both God and His Word.

User avatar
grand_puba
Moderator
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:48 pm

shameless plug

Post by grand_puba » Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:58 am

Here's a shameless plug for our sister site, regarding the same topic:

Critical Study Of A Disputed Passage
Have you read the Rules?

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:34 am

Hi m273p15c,

I would not use any text that is that unreliable. For this reason I never use 1 John 5:7 (KJV) in support of the Trinity. No, nor do I use John 14:14, in which the newer versions contain "me", to demonstrate the deity of Christ in that He is the recipient of prayers for "me" is a contested word. Since it is too disputed it is not wise to base such a major doctrine on this text or any other highly disputed text. If it is that important it will appear elsewhere - such as Christ receiving prayer in Acts 1:24, 25.

I fully agree that God's word will abide forever and that Scripture can not be broken, etc but that is assuming Mark 16:9-20 "is" Scripture. I'm not sure if you or anyone else here is a KJV onlyist (I used to be one) for they (I) would use the same arguments against those who doubted, rejected, etc 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV text.

- Marc

JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Post by JSM17 » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:45 pm

Yes but what makes it unreliable to you?

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:01 am

Among several other things it is lacking in Aleph and B.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

I am glad you agree, but how do you reconcile the passages?

Post by m273p15c » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:39 am

Hi Marc,

I don't want this to degenerate into another discussion on baptism. For the sake of getting somewhere on this point, I'd personally like to stick with JSM17's main question, "Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in the Bible?" So, I will not respond any further to the wisdom in using it to defend baptism.
Marc wrote:I fully agree that God's word will abide forever and that Scripture can not be broken, etc but that is assuming Mark 16:9-20 "is" Scripture. I'm not sure if you or anyone else here is a KJV onlyist (I used to be one) for they (I) would use the same arguments against those who doubted, rejected, etc 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV text.
No, I am not a KJV-onlyist, simply because God never promised that every translation would be without error. Translation is the work of man and not God. Fortunately, we have multiple translations to double-check each other. But, we digress...

My original question is how can you consider the Scriptures to be "unbroken" and "incorruptible" by accepting that a significantly large and contradictory portion has been added to it? Whether text is removed or added, the message becomes altered and corrupt. It becomes broken! Yet, we are promised that it would be "unbroken" and "incorruptible" (John 10:35; II Peter 1:17-25)!

I am not arguing that some Hitler can't burn a few books or some Thomas Jefferson can't cut a few pages out of his personal copy. Such freakish events are easily dismissed. Their actions had no impact on my ability to access the original message of God's Word. Neither, am I arguing that some scribe couldn't accidentally insert an extra word, provided it has zero impact on the meaning. (For example, "Lord Jesus" -> "Lord Jesus Christ" in a few verses.) However, I stagger at the thought that God would permit a hoax and scam to be perpetrated on the entire world by allowing critical, heinous false doctrine regarding the very means of salvation to be embedded in His Holy Word for almost 2000 years! And, we have only recently discovered it! If that is not broken, I do not know what is.

This is a fundamental difference in how we view both God and His Word, which I think we need to reconcile. What do you think?

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:01 pm

Hi,

I accept the Scriptures as unbroken because I believe that "man" has added Mark 16:9-20. Therefore it is not Scripture (to be broken). I beieive this also holds true concerning 1 John 5:7 (KJV) and Acts 8:37.
For a ver very long period of time 1 John 5:7 as it reads in the KJV was believed to be part of the text but now most Christians understand it really doesn't belong there. How did it remain in there for so long?

The Scriptrue is not broken because Mark 16:9-20 does not belong there to begin with. We are discoverning more things about the biblical text (word meanings, archeology, and yes biblical manuscripts) all the time. It is simply a fact that this text is lacking in the earliest Greek, Coptic, Armenian, Latin and Syriac manuscripts.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

(X + 1 != X) && (X + 0 == 0)

Post by m273p15c » Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:42 pm

Marc wrote:I accept the Scriptures as unbroken because I believe that "man" has added Mark 16:9-20. Therefore it is not Scripture (to be broken).
Yes, man added them - but, to what? To what did man add Mark 16:9-20? And, if he added it to something, was not that something altered, changed - corrupted? X + 1 != X
Marc wrote:I beieive this also holds true concerning 1 John 5:7 (KJV) and Acts 8:37.
For a ver very long period of time 1 John 5:7 as it reads in the KJV was believed to be part of the text but now most Christians understand it really doesn't belong there. How did it remain in there for so long?
There is a distinct difference here. These verses add nothing. They are in harmony with the rest of Scripture, and the case against them is quite clear. In other words: X + 0 == X. You are arguing that the worst possible change was permitted - an alteration to the very plan of salvation!
Marc wrote: The Scriptrue is not broken because Mark 16:9-20 does not belong there to begin with. We are discoverning more things about the biblical text (word meanings, archeology, and yes biblical manuscripts) all the time. It is simply a fact that this text is lacking in the earliest Greek, Coptic, Armenian, Latin and Syriac manuscripts.
First, surely you are not comparing the uncovering of the Hittite capital to uncovering the subverting of the plan of salvation? Archeology discoveries only confirm the Scriptures, and there was no promise that man would have complete archaeological records to confirm everything in the Bible. There is no promise in jeopardy here. Second, I don't know what we are improving in our understanding of the Greek language. This is a relatively static field. If you truly think there are some ground-breaking discoveries being made that upset our global understanding, then please present that, so we can learn it too. Plus, we can then compare its impact to disrupting the instructions on how to be saved.

Finally, the majority of documents are vastly in favor of it being included, as JSM17 as shown. The above mentioned article includes some references that indicate THE earliest manuscript actually favors its inclusion. The exclusions seems to stem from a single man's vendetta to remove it, Eusebius. The text was quoted by church fathers (Irenaeus, born about 140 A. D.; and Justin Martyr) proceeding Eusebius' original objection, and it was included in the Peshito Syriac, dated as early as 170 A. D. ... Maybe the facts don't point in the direction asserted...

Anyway, what does this say about God, if He allowed such heinous false doctrine to be propagated as Scriptures for almost 2000 years!?

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:51 pm

I don't understand your question when you asked "To what did man add Mark 16:9-20". Mark 16:9-20 is what man added. They were added at the conclusion of Mark 16:8.

Man has continually been trying to alter the text. Spiros Zodhiates agrees with Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ Chapter 19) that John 1:13 was changed by the Gnostic Valentinians. Instead of "were" it should read "was" thereby giving another example of the Virgin Birth.

If the Virgin Birth was attempted to be discredited then salvation is fair game as well.

Furthermore, the case against Mark 16:9-20 is also quite clear.

Majority of manuscripts doesn't really mean much. The earliest ones do not have them. Manuscripts have to be weighed and not merely counted. The Syriac version discovered by Gibson and Lewis in 1892 pre-dates the Peshito and it concludes at verse 8.
In Tertullian's "De Baptismo" where he discusses quite a few passages in regards to the importance of water baptism "not once" does he mention the text as found in Mark 16:9-20.
Jerome in his letter to a Lady Hedibia wrote "omnibus Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum non habentibus" (almost all of the Greek codices lack the longer ending).
In fact, Victor of Antioch who wrote the earliest know commentary on Mark's gospel concludes at 16:8.

What does it say about God? The question should be is what does it say about man who "forced" these passages in there?

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:06 pm

Marc wrote:Majority of manuscripts doesn't really mean much. The earliest ones do not have them. Manuscripts have to be weighed and not merely counted. The Syriac version discovered by Gibson and Lewis in 1892 pre-dates the Peshito and it concludes at verse 8.
This statement demands an explanation: what EXACTLY then are the merits and procedure to be used in determining authenticity of this text, or any other for that matter?

Without an explanation you have introduced FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) without any method or mechanism to resolve it. The others have offered evidence and openly spoken of the credibility of that evidence weighed with the critics of it. Marc, what can you say of the critics of your point of view, characters such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr that are known to have quoted from it? Or of the other manuscripts that DO contain the text? Or is the mind already made up and it's not possible to weigh the evidence honestly?

What say ye?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:44 pm

Thanks for the good point, sledford!

This is too long, but I wanted to answer the FUD for the benefit of others. ... I'm sure somebody much wiser, better educated, and more experienced than me has already done this somewhere, but please allow me to enumerate and name the arguments we have been discussing. Plus, I would like to further respond to Marc's objections:
  • Doctrinal - The Scriptures forbid tampering on the level being discussed, which is global perversion of truth. The Bible's internal teaching promises the perseverance of the message. It remains "unbroken" and "incorruptible" (John 10:35; II Peter 1:17-25); therefore, it will always be available, understandable, and applicable. After all, that was the point of Jesus' rebuke. The Pharisees had the Scriptures, but they refused to accept its teaching. Since "the Scripture cannot be broken", the fault was clearly their own!
    Marc wrote:I don't understand your question when you asked "To what did man add Mark 16:9-20". Mark 16:9-20 is what man added. They were added at the conclusion of Mark 16:8.
    The answer is they added it to the Scriptures, did they not? Therefore, man altered Scriptures? You have accepted that Scriptures were broken and corrupted by definition, but yet you have refused the label.

    A man cannot add one thing to another thing and still have the first thing. He now has a combination, which is different than the original. Addition always changes a thing, unless the thing being added is nothing. Mathematically, we could express this by recognizing that: X + Y does not equal X, unless Y equals zero.

    Since you believe that Mark 16:9-20 seriously contradicts the plan of salvation, it cannot be called a zero. If you are correct, Mark 16:9-20 adds to the message. It alters the Scriptures, and by definition, the addition corrupts the Bible's accuracy and purity, breaking it. If you are correct, we can no longer make the application Jesus made in John 10:35. We cannot turn to any and every passage in the Bible, rely upon it to be God's Word, and apply it appropriately. The chain of revelation from God to modern man is fundamentally broken. We have to wonder if we still have the true Word of God. We may be reading heresy instead... like Mark 16:9-20, if you are correct...

    To sum this point up, "To what thing did man add Mark 16:9-20?" Answer: The Scriptures. "Therefore, how did he add to Scriptures with out changing them and by definition corrupting them?" "If that is not breaking it, what is?" To add to, is to change, by definition.
    Marc wrote: Man has continually been trying to alter the text. Spiros Zodhiates agrees with Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ Chapter 19) that John 1:13 was changed by the Gnostic Valentinians. Instead of "were" it should read "was" thereby giving another example of the Virgin Birth.

    If the Virgin Birth was attempted to be discredited then salvation is fair game as well.
    This change does not affect the message one way or the other. If John 1:13 should read "was" then this verse will then indeed attest to the fleshly, virgin birth of Jesus. Does that contradict anything? Change anything? No, it would be yet another handy proof text, but it does not add to or change God's message. What if the verse should read "were", as it currently does, which means it refers to us, the children of God? Then it would be yet another passage attesting to the fact that we were unable to save ourselves. We needed grace. Does that contradict anything? Change anything? No! This is a zero sum. It has no impact either way. We still have God's Word! Consequently, this example is not comparable to Mark 16:9-20, and is therefore irrelevant.

    Furthermore, you need to build an external, textual case that proves it is critically comparable to Mark 16:9-20 in terms of amount, quality, and balance of evidence. Can you provide a chart similar to JSM17's, found at the beginning of this thread, but for John 1:13 instead? I don't know. I'm just asking, but I would like to see it...
  • Theological - The essential change of any portion of God's will is contrary to a loving God, Who desires our salvation, and Who has left the Scriptures as our link to Him. (Romans 1:16).
    Marc wrote:What does it say about God? The question should be is what does it say about man who "forced" these passages in there?
    Well, if you are right, it says that some men are bad, very bad, and stupid too. So, what? That is neither a revelation nor challenge to anyone's consistency. However, if you are right, it is a virtual insult to the character of God. My question still stands:
    m273p15c wrote:Anyway, what does this say about God, if He allowed such heinous false doctrine to be propagated as Scriptures for almost 2000 years!?
  • Slippery Slope - If the text can be altered, such that it was virtually undetected for almost 2000 years, how do we know that our "modern Bible" is not also suspect?

    What you are saying is that the Scriptures have contained corruption for the vast majority of their existence, unbeknownst and deadly, which naturally raises an additional question, "How do you know it still doesn't contain such shams?" How do you know Acts 10 was in the original? What if we find an old text missing your favorite proof text? More importantly, how do you know we won't? How can you have any faith in God's Word at all, if you accept the possibility that the Bible contained injected heresy of the rankest order for the vast majority of the New Age?

    Furthermore, keep in mind that the people who say things like, "There is no longer any respectable scholar that holds the opinion that these verses may be part of the original Mark", represent the most liberal textual critics, who disregard anyone who believes in miracles, inspiration, or prophecy. The bulk of the work done to discredit the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20 was performed recently by people who approach the Bible with a fundamental prejudice against miracles, inspiration, and prophecy. They believe the Bible is a myth and conspiracy. If someone drinks from their same prejudiced, tainted cistern, how long will it be before they begin to reach the same conclusion as these infidel critics?
  • Textual - The external, textual evidence favors inclusion.
    Marc wrote:Among several other things it is lacking in Aleph and B.
    For the benefit of other readers, Codex Aleph and Codex B are the age ranked designations for the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus; therefore, this is neither new nor additional evidence to this discussion, because it was already provided in JSM17's original chart.
    Marc wrote:Furthermore, the case against Mark 16:9-20 is also quite clear.

    Majority of manuscripts doesn't really mean much. The earliest ones do not have them. Manuscripts have to be weighed and not merely counted. The Syriac version discovered by Gibson and Lewis in 1892 pre-dates the Peshito and it concludes at verse 8.
    In Tertullian's "De Baptismo" where he discusses quite a few passages in regards to the importance of water baptism "not once" does he mention the text as found in Mark 16:9-20.
    Jerome in his letter to a Lady Hedibia wrote "omnibus Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum non habentibus" (almost all of the Greek codices lack the longer ending).

    In fact, Victor of Antioch who wrote the earliest know commentary on Mark's gospel concludes at 16:8.
    What is the date for the manuscript, which was discovered by Gibson and Lewis? You said it predates the Peshito Syriac, but you did not provide its date.

    Regarding the "weighing" of these "two oldest" manuscripts, they have several disagreements with each other, and they do not include several widely accepted portions. For example, Vaticanus is missing the first 46 chapters of Genesis, Hebrews after Chapter 9:15, the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, and Revelation. Do you refuse to base any doctrine on these texts? If these uncials are so valuable, how come your Bible is not an exact copy of one or the other? Why does it have anything not found in these two texts? And, since they disagree with each other in some points, which one are you going to use as the gold standard? ... I'm just wondering if you put too much weight on these two manuscripts, when it suits. Otherwise, where is your consistency?

    Regarding the "church fathers", you can mention all the people you want who did not reference the verse, but all it takes is one reference to prove that it existed long before the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I provided two, which predate the references you provided and the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus codices. According to your standard of "oldest trumping the majority", would not my two references trump your majority, since my references are dated earlier?
    1. Justin Martyr (100-165) - quotes a portion of these last few verses in Mark
    2. Irenaeus (130-202) - quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies III:10:5-6
    3. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) - does not
    4. Tertullian (160-225) - does not
    5. Origen (185-254) - does not
    6. Jerome (347-420) - does not
    Remember you have to search everywhere to prove that something does not exist, but I only have to find one to prove it did. Instead, I gave you two - and they are earlier. So, who are you going to trust the majority, or the oldest?

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:34 pm

To the first post,

I think your question ought to be asked to the person who started this thread. They assume it is Scripture. So they should tell us the standards to determine if this spurious text is Scripture.

I am well aware that people such as Irenaeus quoted it but that does not necessitae that it is "inspired". Why couldn't he have been quoting from a manuscripts that was spurious?

To the second post,

Scripture is unbroken. Now that we have seen the evidence it is not convincing that this text is inspired therefore it is not Scripture.

By "adding" 1 John 5:7 as per the KJV reading men attempted to alter Scripture. Mark 16:9-20 does not corrupt the Bible's accuracy because it does not belong in the Bible. The words of the Bible have always been in the mind of God. Since this portion never belonged in the mind of God to begin with it was never part of Scripture.

"If" the Valentinians were successful in changing John 1:13 it shows that a doctrine, a very important one, was subject to revision. One word was all it took. One word "baptized" is all it took in Mark 16.

In terms of the chart, it mentions Codex W. Notice the "Freer Logion" which occurs at the end of verse 14 that replaces 16:15-20. It reads,
And they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief are under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore reveal Thy 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 delivered over to death, that they may inherit the spiritual and corruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven."
Since this Codex was cited do you accept this as the "inspired" words of God?

I don't rely on Acts 10 alone to prove that a person is saved before they are water baptized. I also believe that 1 Corinthians 10:2 and 1 Peter 3:20, 21 says the same thing.

I wouldn't say that JAMES Hastings is a liberal textual critic but in his "Dictionary of the Bible" wrote that Mark 16:9-20 was:
"not as part of the original of Mk".
Although not a textual critic but a firm believer in inerrency Christian apologist and philosopher Norman Geisler also does not insist that this text is inspired.

I cited Aleph and B because it is true that the earliest GrEek manuscripts "do not" have them. In terms of B it is more than a coincidnce that it just stopped at verse 8 and not anywhere else agreeing with Aleph.

In terms of the date of the syriac manuscript I am not sure of the specific date. Are you familiar with "The Restoration Quarterly"? That is where I received the information - one thing is for sure a person can not assert I received it from a bias source.

I am not saying it wasn't there what I am saying is the evidence points to the fact that it doesn't "belong" there. Furthermore, the earliest Latin, Armenian, Coptic, and Georgian manuscripts do not have them. Coincidence? Hardly.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:55 pm

Marc wrote:I think your question ought to be asked to the person who started this thread. They assume it is Scripture. So they should tell us the standards to determine if this spurious text is Scripture.

I am well aware that people such as Irenaeus quoted it but that does not necessitae that it is "inspired". Why couldn't he have been quoting from a manuscripts that was spurious?
Wow. And you accuse myself and others of "dodging"? My question was directed at you because you challenge the veractiy of the evidence. The burden of answering the question is upon you (not to mention m273p15c has already answered). Otherwise this is just more FUD, more dead-end questions with no metrics or procedure put forth to resolve them. The only conclusion I can reach is you fear that stating of the standard itself would expose your bias.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:14 pm

Nice try Sledford,

They are making the assertion that it is inspired. I have given strong evidence that it is not. They then must supply the criteria for determing if a text is inspired. Based on what I have presented it is indeed a hopeless cuase.

As the sled just continue in your descent.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:59 am

Marc wrote:They are making the assertion that it is inspired. I have given strong evidence that it is not. They then must supply the criteria for determing if a text is inspired. Based on what I have presented it is indeed a hopeless cuase.
The word "hopeless" can only be stated in the presence of a standard, procedure, and metrics and represents final judgment of two competing cases. The trick is you won't reveal YOUR standard. This is analogous to a one sided "kangaroo" court in which Marc presides as judge, jury, and executioner all the while deliberating behind closed doors and then comes out from behind the curtain and says, "Hopeless". Don't mention the FACT that they already have presented the standard but you refuse to even acknowledge it's existence.

Are you going to drag this into the ditch again with name calling directed towards me? It is the ultimate sign of futility and frustration when one's argument is reduced to ad-hominem attacks. And it is also the utmost in intellectual dishonesty.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:26 am

He that asserts must prove.

I did not initially assert they did. Therefore they must prove.

Get a clue.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:39 am

Marc wrote:He that asserts must prove.

I did not initially assert they did. Therefore they must prove.

Get a clue.
That's convenient. And you haven't made an assertion yourself, that the text is not inspired and does not belong? You have pronounced conclusion and judgment of the "debate" but have not, and refuse to, engage in honest reasoning. Your statement above is not how evaluation of evidence works. For the casual reader, here are the necessary ingredients for debating and evaluating ideas, which you have frequently applied in other threads when it's convenient to you (these are not made up, subjective rules, these are the basic traits of every style of debate and weighing of evidence or ideas):

Question: Is Mark 16:9-20 inspired (put forth as the title of this thread by JSM17)

Affirmative: Mark 16:9-20 is inspired and is part of the text: JSM17 and m273p15c
Negative: Mark 16:9-20 is NOT inspired and is not part of the text: Marc


And continuing, JSM17 and m273p15c have put forth the metrics, procedure, and evidence for the Affirmative. They have been asked and answered various questions both of their own and by you. They have "proven" their Affirmative. Do not try to confuse "agreement" with "proven". This is another tactic of FUD, to confuse the absence of agreement to a point with proof of that point. Marc does not agree and therefore, would very much like for people to believe the Affirmative has not been proven.

Marc on the other hand has presented evidence only for the Negative, no metrics or procedure and refuse to answer the questions. So, if this were High School debate team (which it is not, it is far greater than that as we all stand before God and must give account) you would be disqualified due to an incomplete argument and failure to meet "good decorum".

Quite simply, sir, you seek to create a subjective environment where you are always the self-declared "winner" in every thought, assertion, and conclusion you put forth. You, sir, are of the most dire ilk as you seek to pluck away the very truth that God has put forth. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) is one of many tools used to snatch away the truth of God. The use of FUD seeks to create shadow and fog in the minds of men.
Matt 13:18-20 wrote:18 "Therefore hear the parable of the sower:

19 "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside.

20 "But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; (Matthew 13:18-20)

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:49 pm

Nice try again Sleddy

The evidence I gave was not refuted.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:34 pm

Marc wrote:The evidence I gave was not refuted.
Again, you seek to confuse agreement with refutation, or proof. You don't agree with JSM17 or m273p15c refutation presented but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. The casual reader can see that for themselves in their replies to you.

What are you so afraid of in stating the standard for your conclusion? Ah, but that would pin you down to an objective, unbiased answer, wouldn't it? What are you trying to cling to so desperately?

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:25 pm

Refutation?

Do the eaerliest Greek manuscripts contain them? No
Do the earliest Armenian manuscripts conain them? No
Do the earliest Latin manuscripts contain them? No
Do the earliest Coptic manuscripts conatin them? No
Does the earliest Syriac manuscript contain them? No

Does the earliest known commentary of Mark cotain them? No

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:16 pm

Marc wrote:Refutation?

Do the eaerliest Greek manuscripts contain them? No
Do the earliest Armenian manuscripts conain them? No
Do the earliest Latin manuscripts contain them? No
Do the earliest Coptic manuscripts conatin them? No
Does the earliest Syriac manuscript contain them? No

Does the earliest known commentary of Mark cotain them? No
Please state the manuscript and it's authenticated date of writing. These are conclusions not evidence.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:49 pm

"The earliest Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and Latin manuscripts end the Gospel of Mark at 16:8"

- Bruce Metzger (Christian History Magazine, 9-17-96).

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:15 pm

Marc wrote:"The earliest Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and Latin manuscripts end the Gospel of Mark at 16:8"

- Bruce Metzger (Christian History Magazine, 9-17-96).
Is that to be an "I don't know?" You have stated that your standard is the earliest manuscripts. Where are the manuscripts and their authenticated dates? JSM17 and m273p15c have presented manuscripts and other authors that have quoted from the text WITH the dates of origin for the Affirmative (not to mention several other arguments and evidence for the Affirmative which are still not addressed.). In Marc's corner we have "hearsay" evidence, the quote of a conclusion with no specifics pertinent to the question at hand.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:50 pm

Is there any reason why we are too doubt Metzger here? Has anyone ever refuted him? You defended the manuscripts that were originally cited. Do you agree with what was written Codex W. Is that Scripture? Do you believe the two earliest Greek manuscripts lack them?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

answering and reviewing unanswered arguments

Post by m273p15c » Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:43 am

To answer Marc's latest questions:
Marc wrote: I think your question ought to be asked to the person who started this thread. They assume it is Scripture. So they should tell us the standards to determine if this spurious text is Scripture.
I cannot speak for JSM17, but I believe he has already implied a good standard: Majority and Approximate Age. Mark 16:9-20 appears in more texts, and the "earliest" text is not that much earlier.

I added the reinforcement from early 2nd century Christians, which predate all the other manuscripts and other references.
Marc wrote: I am well aware that people such as Irenaeus quoted it but that does not necessitae that it is "inspired". Why couldn't he have been quoting from a manuscripts that was spurious?
For the same reason that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not spurious. ;-)
Marc wrote: Scripture is unbroken. Now that we have seen the evidence it is not convincing that this text is inspired therefore it is not Scripture.
Please accept my apology if I don't accept your assertion...
Marc wrote: By "adding" 1 John 5:7 as per the KJV reading men attempted to alter Scripture. Mark 16:9-20 does not corrupt the Bible's accuracy because it does not belong in the Bible. The words of the Bible have always been in the mind of God. Since this portion never belonged in the mind of God to begin with it was never part of Scripture.

"If" the Valentinians were successful in changing John 1:13 it shows that a doctrine, a very important one, was subject to revision. One word was all it took. One word "baptized" is all it took in Mark 16.
A standard has already been suggested: "Does the supposed change contradict anything in Scripture?" "Is either reading spiritually inaccurate?" The possible readings in these two cases have no impact on any other doctrine, and they teach no new one. Therefore, if we assume they are additions, they have no impact on Scripture. They are zero sum! If you disagree, please show which doctrine was contradicted, not by the supposed intent of the supposed modifiers, but by the supposedly altered text itself!
Marc wrote:Mark 16:9-20 does not corrupt the Bible's accuracy because it does not belong in the Bible. The words of the Bible have always been in the mind of God. Since this portion never belonged in the mind of God to begin with it was never part of Scripture.
This is a serious abuse of the text:
Jesus, as recorded by John who wrote:Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? (John 10:34-36)
Nowhere does are the Scriptures defined as what alone exists in the mind of God. The very word means "writings". First, please notice that Jesus equated Scripture to what was revealed, not what remained in secure in God's mind. Secondly, He equates the transmitted law to Scripture too! What "is written" provides Jesus' quote, which he equates to the original revealed word of God, which he asserts his unbreakable!

Furthermore, the Scriptures in the New Testament, always refer to something that is readable. Who can "read" the mind of God?
Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes'? (Matthew 21:42)

"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. (John 5:39)

Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ." (Acts 17:2-3)

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11)

And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace; for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 18:27-28)

For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. (Romans 15:4)

and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (II Timothy 3:14-17)

... and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation -- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (II Peter 3:15-16)

What is your basis for limiting the definition of "Scriptures" as to what exists in the mind of God? Why did Jesus go to their law instead of quoting directly from the mind of God? And, why did He say the law, both delivered and transmitted, was unbreakable, if that's not true?

How can we read, search, explain and demonstrate from the Scriptures, if they exist with God and were unavailable to us from an interim of almost 2000 years! How can the Scriptures provide us hope and comfort, if they exist with God and we are uncertain of what we have? How do you know what the future will bring? How the Scriptures be profitable for anything, much less teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, if we cannot access them? How can someone "twist the Scriptures to their destruction", if the Scriptures exist in the mind of God? Will they twist God's mind within Him?!

Marc wrote:In terms of the chart, it mentions Codex W. Notice the "Freer Logion" which occurs at the end of verse 14 that replaces 16:15-20.

No, I reject that because it does not appear in early texts, AND it does not appear in the majority of texts, AND it did not find its way into the accepted cannon. To add it, would imply that we had it wrong for 2000 years - again, a reflection on God. I assume it was an oversight on JSM17's part to include it. However, if it is removed, it will weaken the "majority argument" from 19 vs. 4 to 18 vs. 4. Is the majority now in favor of excluding Mark 16:9-20?

Marc wrote: I wouldn't say that JAMES Hastings is a liberal textual critic but in his "Dictionary of the Bible" wrote that Mark 16:9-20 was:
"not as part of the original of Mk".
Although not a textual critic but a firm believer in inerrency Christian apologist and philosopher Norman Geisler also does not insist that this text is inspired.

I did not argue that only liberal critics hold your position, and therefore, you are a liberal and wrong. It wasn't an argument at all, but a "wake-up-call". What kind of people are you siding with? How can you avoid their ultimate conclusions (slippery-slope argument)? It was a personal statement meant serve as point for personal consideration - not an argument itself. Given that introduction, since the bulk of the scholars in support of this are modern liberal scholars who reject inspiration, miracles, and prophecies, I consider this a scary point - not conclusive - but scary and worth personal meditation.

Marc wrote: I cited Aleph and B because it is true that the earliest GrEek manuscripts "do not" have them. In terms of B it is more than a coincidnce that it just stopped at verse 8 and not anywhere else agreeing with Aleph.

So you admit that Aleph and B disagree with each other in several other places? If so, please revisit my previous questions from the last post. If not, I have already conceded this point (that the two earliest discovered Greek manuscripts do not contain this text); however, I have also provided evidence to discredit the absence of Mark 16:9-20, while providing evidence to existence well before these two uncials were conceived.

Marc wrote:In terms of the date of the syriac manuscript I am not sure of the specific date. Are you familiar with "The Restoration Quarterly"?

No, I'm not familiar with it. Would you please either provide the date or withdraw the argument? Also, would you please provide a complete reference (date, issue, page), so someone can independently investigate this citation?

Marc wrote: I am not saying it wasn't there what I am saying is the evidence points to the fact that it doesn't "belong" there.

Yes, I understand your assertion. That is not the question. I'm questioning the basis for your conclusion.

Marc wrote:Furthermore, the earliest Latin, Armenian, Coptic, and Georgian manuscripts do not have them. Coincidence? Hardly.

Is it coincidence that you assert again, but do not provide hard evidence? Please provide numbers and dates. JSM17 has put his money where his mouth his, as have I. Why don't you?

Marc wrote: They are making the assertion that it is inspired. I have given strong evidence that it is not. They then must supply the criteria for determing if a text is inspired. Based on what I have presented it is indeed a hopeless cuase.

Wrong. Assertion. Already done. Assertion.

It has been generally accepted for almost 2000 years. The burden of proof lies on you, since you wish to undo it. Furthermore, I have already presented the evidence and "metrics" for my case, as sledford likes to call it. So, I have fulfilled your request, even though the initial burden was yours and remain yours.

I will not enter into a "yes you did - no you didn't" argument with you. Please confine yourself to the logical arguments. If we merely assert the strength of our respective cases, we have no hope of ever getting anywhere. For the sake of truth, unity, and brotherly love - and our commonly accepted Master - please desist such statements!

Marc wrote:He that asserts must prove.

I did not initially assert they did. Therefore they must prove.

Get a clue.
...
Nice try again Sleddy

The evidence I gave was not refuted.

This is shameful argumentation.

sledford wrote:
Marc wrote:Refutation?

Do the eaerliest Greek manuscripts contain them? No
Do the earliest Armenian manuscripts conain them? No
Do the earliest Latin manuscripts contain them? No
Do the earliest Coptic manuscripts conatin them? No
Does the earliest Syriac manuscript contain them? No

Does the earliest known commentary of Mark cotain them? No
Please state the manuscript and it's authenticated date of writing. These are conclusions not evidence.
Couldn't have said it better myself!

Furthermore, unless you are arguing for the majority, I only have to provide one early reference, and I did: Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. Are you arguing to heed the majority now?
Marc wrote:"The earliest Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and Latin manuscripts end the Gospel of Mark at 16:8"

- Bruce Metzger (Christian History Magazine, 9-17-96).

...

Is there any reason why we are too doubt Metzger here? Has anyone ever refuted him?
Here's the problem for this: For every Metzger, there's a Burgeon. For every Burgeon, there's a Geisler. For every Geisler, there's a Scrivner. And so on... For every scholar you produce that concludes for its exclusion, someone can provide another scholar against. So, is that your standard? Do you accept just whatever Metzger says? On everything? Or, just the things that are convenient?

I'm sorry, but I use their scholarship to uncover and analyze evidence, but I use my own brain to make my own conclusions. Furthermore, the doctrinal, theological, and slippery-slope arguments should also be answered, since the evidence is not one-sided.
Marc wrote:You defended the manuscripts that were originally cited. Do you agree with what was written Codex W. Is that Scripture? Do you believe the two earliest Greek manuscripts lack them?
See above answers...

Previous Questions To which Marc has not Responded:
  • How is uncovering new archaeological facts yields new understanding comparable to uncovering a corruption regarding the plan of salvation?
  • What recent discoveries regarding the Greek language are comparable to discovering a heinous insertion regarding the plan of salvation?
  • How is it that man could add to Scriptures and not change it, rendering it corrupted and broken?
  • How a change in plurality of "was"/"were" in John 1:13 introduces false doctrine on par with Mark 16:9-20?
  • What are we saying about God by accepting that He permitted heinous false doctrine to be injected into Scripture, which was undiscovered for almost 2000 years?
  • How can he assure us that anything in the Bible is from God, because he cannot promise we will not find an new, earlier manuscript missing any given section?
  • Why has he rejected the quotation of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus from Mark 16:9-20, who are dated earlier than all his references, including all of the "earliest Latin, Armenian, Coptic, and Georgian manuscripts"?
  • What standard does he use for placing confidence in any passage in the Bible?

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:15 am

I never said that Scriptres are defined as what "alone" exist in the mind of God. I'm sure there is much more to Him and He has other thoughts that go beyond (although not contradicting) the Scriptures. So ot does not constitute "a serious abuse of the text"

I have given several examples that this text is not in the earliest manuscripts when it was translated into diferent languages. I have also supplied the fact that the first known commtary on Mark did not have it either.

The fact that W does have this "added" gives us further eveidence that all long endings do not belong whether they be the shorter ending as here or the longer ending as in 16:9-20.

You wrote that the bulk of the workd done by those who seek to discredit this text also do not believe in miracles and prophecy. I deny that it is done by the "bulk" of them. I was at a conservative Christian seminary and most all the commentaries they had this section was not included.
Just because skeptics and atheists say something does not necessitate it should automatically be rejected. The evidence must be looked at regardless of who it comes from. If they are correct then they are correct.

Of course Aleph and B disagree with one another. The are very few manuscripts that are "exactly" the same. In fact, I don't know any that are.

The Restoration Quarterly "The Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20" by Stanley N. Helton (Volume 36, #1, copyright 1994, pages 33-52).

In terms of the specific dates of the manuscripts I have cited I do not have them. I did provide evidence from Metzger that these are in fact the earliest manuscripts of these languages. I am SURE if he was in error thos that defend this spurious text would demonstrate he is in error - but they don't. Provide one scholar so I can check out what he/she said that refutes Metxger. You mentioned Burgeon. Does he ever state that there are earlier manuscripts that do contain this text form the languages I cited or for that matter does anyone else?

Whereas we have Aleph and B we do not have the manuscript from which Irenaeus cited. There is no way to verify what else it contained.

It is not "wrong". There is strong evidence that it is not inspired. Jerome, Victor, earliest manuscripts, etc.

- John 1:13: Denying that Christ was born of a virgin bolsters the Gnostic claim that He was not necessarily sinless. A sinful Savior could not save anyone.
- In terms mof the heionous doctrine being introduced, God permits things to happen. As to the specific reason why He only knows.
- If we do happen to find an earlier manuscript than the ones we have now I'd like to see if it contradicts what the Bible teaches as Mark 16:16 does.
- Irenaues and Martyr we do not have the text to verify what else it said. Some manuscxripts at that time may have had them but as Jerome stated, "almost all of the Greek codices lack the longer ending".

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:54 am

One more reason as to why we know this text is spurious. Mark 16:16 contradicts Acts 10:44-48. That is a very clear contradiction for the Gentiles were definately saved before they were water baptized.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:17 pm

Marc wrote:Is there any reason why we are too doubt Metzger here? Has anyone ever refuted him? You defended the manuscripts that were originally cited. Do you agree with what was written Codex W. Is that Scripture? Do you believe the two earliest Greek manuscripts lack them?
a) There is no context for Metzger's comment
b) Because there is no context for Metzger's comment and it is not quantifiable, it is not pertinent to the question at hand.

The issue is relevancy of the Metzger quote. The question still remains: Please provide the manuscripts and their dates. For the Affirmative we have a list with dates. For the Negative there is a hearsay conclusion from a 3rd party. That is logically analogous to saying 2 = 0. The Affirmative and the Negative are currently not comparable. The Affirmative is measureable, the Negative (so far) is subjective and not measureable.

This is the trouble with Marc's tactic. The word "earliest" by it's definition is relative. So, the next question is: relative to what? Since the Metzger quote provides no quantifiable point of reference, the relative value of "earliest" cannot be measured especially to a quantified list provided by JSM17 and m273p15c. Does the quote from Metzger represent even a complete and comparable list to that provided by JSM17 and m273p15c? It currently cannot be determined.

This latest point is circular logic:
Marc wrote:One more reason as to why we know this text is spurious. Mark 16:16 contradicts Acts 10:44-48. That is a very clear contradiction for the Gentiles were definately saved before they were water baptized.
It is effectively saying: "This text cannot be accurate because it disagrees with my conclusion regarding another text which disagrees with the disputed text". The first response to this dillemma SHOULD be: maybe my conclusion is not correct (referencing m273p15c earlier point about the scripture remaining "unbroken"). But, either way it is circular logic to invalidate a text because of disagreement about a conclusion, again confusing agreement with refutation. Marc's statement reminds of the attitude expressed by Martin Luther regarding scriptures he didn't agree with either:
Martin Luther wrote:In a word, St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and St. Peter's first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.
Luther did not like it that James speaks extensively of "works and faith" which disagreed violently with his "faith only" conclusion. His answer: James doesn't below. THAT is scary stuff!.

See if this doesn't sound familiar with our friend Marc and his arguments for the Negative so far. This is an excerpt from a biography on Luther:
Luther biographer Hartmann Grisar, S.J. (author of a massive six-volume biography), writes:

His criticism of the Bible proceeds along entirely subjective and arbitrary lines. The value of the sacred writings is measured by the rule of his own doctrine. He treats the venerable canon of Scripture with a liberty which annihilates all certitude. For, while this list has the highest guarantee of sacred tradition and the backing of the Church, Luther makes religious sentiment the criterion by which to decide which books belong to the Bible, which are doubtful, and which are to be excluded. At the same time he practically abandons the concept of inspiration, for he says nothing of a special illuminative activity of God in connection with the writers' composition of the Sacred Book, notwithstanding that he holds the Bible to be the Word of God because its authors were sent by God . . . . .

Thus his attitude towards the Bible is really burdened with 'flagrant contradictions,' to use an expression of Harnack, especially since he 'had broken through the external authority of the written word,' by his critical method. And of this, Luther is guilty, the very man who elsewhere represents the Bible as the sole principle of faith!

(Martin Luther: His Life and Work, tr. Frank J. Eble, ed. Arthur Preuss, Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1930, 263-265)
Last edited by sledford on Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:30 pm

The context of Metzger's comment has to do with the ending of Mark's Gpsel. Seeing you don't like what he wrote you simply reject it.

You have not answered if the two earliest Greek manuscripts lack them. Does it appear in the "earliest" known commentary of Mark? Did Jerome state that it was lacking in almost all the Greek texts?

1. The book of James does not contradict the precious truth that we are saved by faith alone.
2. The book of James is not lacking in the earliest manuscripts.

Since Acts 10:44-48 shows that the Gentiles were definately saved before they were water baptized and Mark 16:16 demands one must be water baptized first then that is a contradiction.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:20 pm

Marc wrote:The context of Metzger's comment has to do with the ending of Mark's Gpsel. Seeing you don't like what he wrote you simply reject it.
Subjective adjectives such as "like" are rare in my use of language. I "like" my wife and kids and I don't "like" cold weather, but concrete criteria is used in weighing evidence. I used words such as "relevant" and "pertinent" to remove subjectivity from the conclusions for Metzger's quote. But I missed your acknowledgment earlier that you don't know the manuscripts and dates.
Marc wrote: In terms of the specific dates of the manuscripts I have cited I do not have them.
So, the point is ceded. We, along with the silent readers, cannot compare your assertion or weigh it's merits with those presented for the Affirmative. Surprising since I expected better from you.

And another point of clarity. I assume this recent comment is in reply to the question regarding your assertion that there is an earlier Syriac text to the Peshito:
Marc wrote: The Restoration Quarterly "The Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20" by Stanley N. Helton (Volume 36, #1, copyright 1994, pages 33-52).
Can you provide a electronic source or scan of this journal article? The Restorations Quarterly no longer has a web site and there are no online archives that I could find of this issue. If there is an online archive that would be helpful.
Marc wrote: In terms of the date of the syriac manuscript I am not sure of the specific date. Are you familiar with "The Restoration Quarterly"? That is where I received the information - one thing is for sure a person can not assert I received it from a bias source.
Marc wrote:The Syriac version discovered by Gibson and Lewis in 1892 pre-dates the Peshito and it concludes at verse 8.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:30 pm

You don't "like" what Metzger wrote otherwise you would have produced something that shows he is wrong. Waiting...

In terms of the text I cited from the Restoration Quarterly showing that a Syriac text does indeed pre-date the Peshitto you can contact Western Baptist College in Salem Oregon. They have it.

Since you refer to the original post do you accept what is written Codex W as inspired?

You did not respond at all to what I wrote about:
- The book of James
- The earliest known commentary of Mark
- Jerome
- The two earliest Greek manuscripts.

I expected better.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

final response

Post by m273p15c » Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:00 am

I do not believe this is going anywhere. Marc has still not dealt with several questions, and he has not addressed the essential point underlying several others. For the benefit of the silent reader, I would like to remind everyone of the unanswered questions, after re-answering Marc's questions:

To answer Marc's latest questions:
Marc wrote:Mark 16:9-20 does not corrupt the Bible's accuracy because it does not belong in the Bible. The words of the Bible have always been in the mind of God. Since this portion never belonged in the mind of God to begin with it was never part of Scripture. ... I never said that Scriptres are defined as what "alone" exist in the mind of God. I'm sure there is much more to Him and He has other thoughts that go beyond (although not contradicting) the Scriptures. So ot does not constitute "a serious abuse of the text"
You have missed the point. The question never was about what existed in God's mind and its veracity. The question revolved around the accuracy and faithfulness of what we have! Jesus said the Scriptures could not be broken. Does that apply to what we have? Or, does it only apply to what exists in God's mind, as you have claimed. You already surrendered that our copy was broken, so the only remaining solace was to redefine the Scriptures as what exists in the mind of God. Unfortunately, God's revealed will does not support this definition, because it is internally characterized as having these properties: written, readable, searchable, illuminating, foundation for refutation, providing comfort and patience, able to make us wise unto salvation, profitable for doctrine, profitable for reproof, profitable for correction, profitable for instruction in righteousness, and able to be twisted to one's own destruction (Matthew 21:42; John 5:39; Acts 17:2-3; Acts 17:11; Acts 18:27-28; Romans 15:4; II Timothy 3:14-17; II Peter 3:15-16). None of these properties can be applied to what exists in the mind of God, simply because we cannot read His mind (I Corinthians 2:11). Only the Bible can do all of these things, which makes it "the Scriptures", which Jesus said is unbreakable.

If man can essentially corrupt the transmitted Word of God, and if the promise of "unbreakability" and "incorruptibility" applies only to what exists in God's mind, then what is the point of the promise? We cannot access God's mind, except through the revealed, inspired Scriptures (I Corinthians 2:12-16; II Timothy 3:16-17; Ephesians 3:3-5). What was the point of Jesus' asserting that the Scriptures were unbreakable and quoting from the Old Law, if the transmitted Old Law was not Scriptures and could be broken? Since we cannot access what lies in the mind of God, assuming you are correct, what is the point of the promise?

Back to John 10:35, we see that Jesus referred to the Scriptures as what was delivered, available for reading, and open to understanding. We cannot read God's mind (I Corinthians 2:11). Only the Bible fulfills the properties of "Scripture" as outlined in John 10:35: revealed ("came to them"), written ("is it not written"), preserved to be read ("in your law", and quoted by Jesus), and intended to be understood (pointless to quote Old Law as authoritative, if it cannot be understood or if it is untrustworthy). Therefore, your argument is false, because the Scriptures cannot be broken. If your interpretation of Mark 16:9-20 is correct, then the insertion of the passage would constitute a 2000 year reign of corrupted Scriptures, as internally defined. Consequently, you are faced with a dilemma: Either your interpretation of Mark 16:9-20 is false or Mark 16:9-20 is canon.

Marc wrote:I have given several examples that this text is not in the earliest manuscripts when it was translated into diferent languages. I have also supplied the fact that the first known commtary on Mark did not have it either.

You only gave two examples. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which JSM17 conceded in his first thread. This was answered by noting that:
  1. These two documents contradict each other greatly (questioning their credibility)
  2. They are missing other verses which have not been challenged (questioning consistency)
  3. The earlier church fathers quoted from the "missing" text
  4. The vast majority of texts contain the passage (JSM17's original chart)
  5. The "older" manuscripts, which contain Mark 16:9-20, are not much older than the "earliest". In fact, they are closer to the "earliest" than the "earliest" are to the original autographs (compare 4th and 5th century versus 1st century).
  6. Regarding the first known commentary, please remember that absence of something in some places does not necessitate absence in all. Two references (Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) were provided showing that the text existed and was quoted well before the first commentary's conception.
Marc wrote: The fact that W does have this "added" gives us further eveidence that all long endings do not belong whether they be the shorter ending as here or the longer ending as in 16:9-20.
This was answered last time. Yes, not all texts should be considered cannon, just because they show up in some document somewhere. Passages must be supported by a significant number of aged, trusted sources. The Freer Ligon version of Mark 16:9-20 is found in a small number of older documents that are generally regarded as untrustworthy. Plus, to add it would presume that the Scriptures were broken for almost 2000 years, since they were missing this text. This possibility is rejected based on the first argument.
Marc wrote:Of course Aleph and B disagree with one another. The are very few manuscripts that are "exactly" the same. In fact, I don't know any that are.
That's my point! You have to put multiple texts together. Each one has holes. Canon is partly defined by the sum of documents, not just two; otherwise, our Bible would be a direct translation of the Sinaiticus. Now, if you accept the "sum" principle for other passages, why not this one?
Marc wrote:In terms of the specific dates of the manuscripts I have cited I do not have them. I did provide evidence from Metzger that these are in fact the earliest manuscripts of these languages. I am SURE if he was in error thos that defend this spurious text would demonstrate he is in error - but they don't. Provide one scholar so I can check out what he/she said that refutes Metxger. You mentioned Burgeon. Does he ever state that there are earlier manuscripts that do contain this text form the languages I cited or for that matter does anyone else?
Dean Burgon accumulated extensive work on this point. Scrivner and Lenski are translators and commentators who also researched and favored its conclusion. Although they may not disregard Metzger himself, they do ultimately dismiss the evidence he used.

Again, this gets us nowhere, because you have not provided Metzger's evidence to examine.
Marc wrote:Whereas we have Aleph and B we do not have the manuscript from which Irenaeus cited. There is no way to verify what else it contained.
Neither do we have the manuscripts that Tertullian and Victor of Antioch used. See, you are not being consistent.

Furthermore, we must weigh all the evidence, and not focus only on the evidence that supports our case. Irenaeus and Justin Martyr are just as good as Eusebius, Tertullian, and Jerome - except Irenaeus and Justin Martyr predate the others.
Marc wrote:It is not "wrong". There is strong evidence that it is not inspired. Jerome, Victor, earliest manuscripts, etc.
If Jerome thought Mark 16:9-20 was not canon, why did he include it in his Latin Vulgate? He must have not had too much doubt; otherwise, he would have rejected it.

At best, you have a stale-mate on the textual evidence. Consequently, I think the most power arguments are the doctrinal and theological, and I would focus on them. Therefore, I believe the decision we make is ultimately a reflection on how we view God and His Word. However, the textual evidence is just as strong, if not stronger, for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 in the Bible.
Marc wrote: - John 1:13: Denying that Christ was born of a virgin bolsters the Gnostic claim that He was not necessarily sinless. A sinful Savior could not save anyone.
Again, you failed to answer the question. The question was not, "What were the false doctrines held by the people trying to change John 1:13?". The question was, "What false doctrine could be produced from either reading of John 1:13? What false doctrine is taught by changing "were" to "was", or vice-versa? None! The reading is inconsequential to the revealed message.
Marc wrote: - In terms mof the heionous doctrine being introduced, God permits things to happen. As to the specific reason why He only knows.
Except God is not a unfair God. He has deliberately gone to great lengths to demonstrate His fairness and justice (Romans 3:25-26); therefore, any doctrine that charges God with ultimate, catastrophic, eternal injustice must be rejected as profound heresy!
Marc wrote: - If we do happen to find an earlier manuscript than the ones we have now I'd like to see if it contradicts what the Bible teaches as Mark 16:16 does.
So, how can you guarantee that it will not happen? You have already denied the protection and promise that John 10:35 and II Peter 1:18-22 offer.
Marc wrote: - Irenaues and Martyr we do not have the text to verify what else it said. Some manuscxripts at that time may have had them but as Jerome stated, "almost all of the Greek codices lack the longer ending".
Repetition of above... Neither do we have the documents Tertullian and Victor of Antioch used - so what? If you trust these two, why not Irenaeus and Justin Martyr? Plus, Jerome included Mark 16:9-20 in his Latin Vulgate. If he was such a respected expert and was ultimately uncomfortable removing it from the canon, why are you so bold?
Marc wrote: In terms of the text I cited from the Restoration Quarterly showing that a Syriac text does indeed pre-date the Peshitto you can contact Western Baptist College in Salem Oregon. They have it.
I do not have immediate access to that. Please provide the date, rather than expecting us to simply take your word for the paper's conclusions. If we trusted your interpretation of evidence, we would not be having this discussion.

Regarding Acts 10:44-48, I agree with sldedford's reasoning, that basing rejection of any text on contradiction with another is assuming the thing to be proven, circular reasoning. Therefore, I reject the dismissal of Mark 16:9-20, because it contradicts anyone's interpretation of Acts 10:44-48.

Old Questions Marc has still failed to address:
  • How is uncovering new archaeological facts yields new understanding comparable to uncovering a corruption regarding the plan of salvation?
  • What recent discoveries regarding the Greek language are comparable to discovering a heinous insertion regarding the plan of salvation?
  • How is it that man could add to Scriptures and not change it, rendering it corrupted and broken?
  • How a change in plurality of "was"/"were" in John 1:13 introduces false doctrine on par with Mark 16:9-20?
  • What are we saying about God by accepting that He permitted heinous false doctrine to be injected into Scripture, which was undiscovered for almost 2000 years?
  • How can he assure us that anything in the Bible is from God, because he cannot promise we will not find an new, earlier manuscript missing any given section?
  • Why has he rejected the quotation of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus from Mark 16:9-20, who are dated earlier than all his references, including all of the "earliest Latin, Armenian, Coptic, and Georgian manuscripts"?
  • What standard does he use for placing confidence in any passage in the Bible?
  • Why he limits "unbroken Scripture" to what exists in God's mind, especially in view of the internal definition?
  • Why he dismisses the other variants in Aleph and B, but firmly holds on to their minority exclusion of Mark 16:9-20?
  • Why he clings to the early minority on documents, but clings to the late majority on quotations? Standard of convenience?
  • Why he accepts Metzger as final authority on Mark 16:9-20, but he does not accept him on other things? Standard of convenience?
  • Has not addressed any arguments found in the originally linked article.
Since I have repeated myself twice now, I am done on this thread.

Thank you for your patience and thoughtful consideration.

christianonly81093
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:08 pm
Location: Rector Arkansas
Contact:

Post by christianonly81093 » Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:11 pm

It does belong because if you read on to verse 20 you find that the "signs that will follow" actually means the APOSTLES not the ones who were baptized did this, otherwise we would do all these things.
Salem

Snapp
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:55 am
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Mark 16:9-20 and Evidence-Presentation

Post by Snapp » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:27 am

I, too, believe that Mark 16:9-20 belongs in the New Testament.

Regarding your statement that the signs described in this passage will follow the apostles, I think we should consider what the text says in 16:20 and in 16:17 -- in 16:20, the signs accompany the disciples, i.e., the Eleven. in 16:17, Jesus says that the signs shall accompany those who believe.

So there's some room for an interpretation to the effect that these signs were promised to all believers, and the apostles were just typical believers in this regard. But I think there's a better way of understanding the passage: picture a military general, speaking to his army before a battle. He says, "I want each one of you to do your best. Don't turn your back on the enemy. Follow your orders. Those who fight well will be awarded a badge of honor." This would not mean that the general was promising a badge to everyone who fought well, everywhere. The phrase "Those who fight well" was limited in its scope, contextually, to those to whom he was speaking on that particular occasion. And the same sort of thing occurs in Mark 16:17. So, besides the fact that not all believers are going around casting out demons, speaking in new tongues, taking up serpents, surviving poison-ingestion, and healing the sick, there's a reasonable interpretation of the passage that works in favor of limiting its application to those individuals who were on the scene (i.e., the Eleven, and whoever else happened to be with Him on the occasion described in Mark 16:14-18).

This thread, which was begun years ago, it seems, apparently deteriorated before a thorough investigation of the evidence involved could really get underway. I'd like to revisit the topic in a new thread (so that future visitors won't have to plod through all the banter in this thread).

My opening position will be: Mark 16:9-20 was part of the Gospel of Mark when the Gospel of Mark was initially used by the church. The available evidence, both internal and external, is not strong enough to prove that Mark 16:9-20 is not an integral part of the Gospel of Mark.

If anyone here would like to engage with a counter-claim, I would welcome a cordial conversation on this subject. (In the new thread, that is.)

Yours in Christ,

Snapp

Post Reply