Baptism and Mark 16

[steve7150]

Homer wrote:Paidion,
I think it's far fetched that a copyist made up or inserted this in Irenaous's letter so if it's legit then it's likely the ending is legit and perhaps was on a separate page that was misplaced or accidently destroyed.




107 A.D. There are 15 letters that bear his name, and it is generally agreed that eight of them are spurious. They include many ideas that can only belong to a later age. Those whic RE: Ignatious





Actually i wrote the above and we are just referencing a sentence quoted by Irenaous within a letter so unless there some evidence the letter is spurious why take a position it's not legit?

[Paidion]

Actually i wrote the above and we are just referencing a sentence quoted by Irenaous within a letter so unless there some evidence the letter is spurious why take a position it's not legit?

I don't know why I thought your statement was written by Homer. I must have had yet another senior moment.
I agree with you that there is no known evidence for the reference to Mark being an interpolation. But are you saying that the idea of an interpolation is not a possible explanation for the disparity simply because there is no evidence? If so, that position would seem unusual, since throughout history people have offered explanations for which there is no evidence. These explanations are called "hypotheses", and do not qualify as "theories" until they are tested.

[steve7150]

I don't know why I thought your statement was written by Homer. I must have had yet another senior moment.
I agree with you that there is no known evidence for the reference to Mark being an interpolation. But are you saying that the idea of an interpolation is not a possible explanation for the disparity simply because there is no evidence? If so, that position would seem unusual, since throughout history people have offered explanations for which there is no evidence. These explanations are called "hypotheses", and do not qualify as "theories" until they are tested.









An interpolation is possible , but we are talking about a sentence in a letter about a phrase which does not contradict any bible doctrine so i can't see on what basis anyone would not accept the letter as legit barring any evidence to the contrary.

[steve]

My lecture notes on Mark have the following information:

VIII. Long or short ending?

Short ending has Mark abruptly cut off with 16:8; long ending includes verses 9-20.
Some 6th, 7th and 8th century manuscripts append a few additional verses to the shorter ending.

Arguments against inclusion of verses 9-20:

1. These verses are missing from the early Greek manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (early fourth century), as well as some early Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts;

2. Some early fathers (e.g. Origen and Clement of Alexandria) did not seem to be familiar with them;

3. Eusebius and Jerome say that these verses are missing from most of the manuscripts available to them in their time;

4. Non-markan vocabulary (of the 183 words in the long ending, 53 are not found elsewhere in Mark; 21 are not found elsewhere in the New Testament);

5. The transition from verse 8 to verse 9 is rough, not smooth (subject of sentence in v.9);

6. Mary Magdalene is identified in more detail in verse 9 than in verse 1 (as if she had not been mentioned previous to v.9)

Arguments against ending at verse 8:

1. Mark would then end without recording any resurrection appearances;

2. Mark would then end with only women having heard the angels’ report, but left bewildered and frightened and not telling anyone else about it;

3. It would make Mark the only known book in Greek literature to end with the word gar (“because”);

4 Verse 7 predicts Jesus’ meeting the disciples in Galilee, but its fulfillment is unrecorded, making it the only prediction in Mark whose fulfillment goes unmentioned;

5. An alternative short ending adds the following after verse 8:
Then they briefly reported all this to Peter and his companions. Afterward Jesus himself sent them out from east to west with the sacred and unfailing message of salvation that gives eternal life. Amen. (NLT)

6. Yet another ending, found in one ancient manuscript, adds, after verse 14:
And they excused themselves, saying, “This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not permit God’s truth and power to conquer the evil spirits. Therefore reveal your justice now.” This is what they said to Christ. And Christ replied to them, “The period of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other dreadful things will happen soon. And I was handed over to death for those who have sinned, so that they may return to the truth and sin no more, and so they may inherit the spiritual, incorruptible, and righteous glory in heaven.”


Arguments for inclusion of verses 9-20:

1. They are found in the Syriac Peshita (dated from mid-2nd to late-4th century);

2. They are included in the Old Latin Version (prior to the Vulgate), which dates from AD 150-170, the source of the Waldensian Bible;

3. The Gothic translation, from AD 350, includes the long ending;

4. Irenaeus (AD 170) quoted from the long ending, and Tatian (AD 175) included it in his harmony of the Gospels, the Diatessaron;

5. Tertullian (AD 215) refers to Mark 16:19; Hippolytus (AD 235) twice quotes 16:18-19;

6. As for “non-Markan” terminology, all of the “unique” words are forms of words found elsewhere in Mark. Mark has 102 unique words outside the long ending.
Compare the other Gospels:
a. Luke 1:1-12 has 20 words not found elsewhere in the New Testament;
b. Matthew has 137 unique words; Luke has 312; John has 114

7. As for the rough transition from verse 8 to verse 9, Mark has other abrupt story changes in 14:53-55 and 14:65-66;

8. The more detailed reference to Mary in verse 9 does not prove that a later writer added it, since that later writer could see as easily as could Mark, that she had already been mentioned in verse 1.

[Homer]

Thanks Steve, good summary.