Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Mark 16:9-20 Epilogue.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mark 16:9-20 Epilogue.

    There are a number of issues with the Mark 16:9-20 epilogue.

    Let us discuss two of the issues:

    1) Is the text Holy Scripture?

    2) Was that epilogue written by Mark?

    Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture when it was written. Something Jesus said to unbelievers in His day, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." -- John 8:47.

    The manuscript evidence, only a very few of [our current copies of] manuscripts omit the reading (00.2%). The evidence being the majority of early Christians accepted it as Holy Scripture.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

  • #2
    Yes it is Holy Scripture.

    I have my own theory. I think it was written by Peter, much earlier, as a sort of “The Gospel of Christ’s Resurrection According to Peter,” a stand alone book, and Mark chose to conclude his own gospel with it.

    Reasoning:
    Tradition says Mark was asked to write an account of Christ’s life according to what Peter had taught. If he had any actual writings of Peter, it just makes sense that he’d use them as is, especially something as important as the Easter story.

    The content of these verses seems to me to be the sort of thing that would have been written very early. Instead of covering all the things Jesus taught and did during his last 40 days, it briefly points to the apostles as those who were sent out with signs to demonstrate the validity of their apostleship. Before any of the gospels were written, this would have been a useful way to say, “Here’s how you will recognize those who can tell you everything you need to know that’s not in this Easter account.” Much later, after the gospels were finished and as the time of the apostles drew to a close, it would seem much less reasonable to write this type of a summary. I could imagine Peter writing these verses in the very first year or two after the resurrection. I can’t imagine that someone found Mark’s Gospel missing a chapter toward the end of the first century and decided to fill in the rest of the story with this type of conclusion.

    It seems highly unlikely to me either that:
    1) Mark chose to end his gospel with the women leaving the tomb and saying nothing because they were afraid.
    2) Mark’s gospel losing its ending, and someone added a new ending, but did such an awkward job of combining them (backtracking and reintroducing Mary Magdalene, for example).
    3) Mark’s gospel accidentally lost its ending, but at just the right spot so that there just happened to be a writing that fit almost perfectly that could just be tacked on as is.

    On the other hand, if Mark intended to end with Peter’s Resurrection Gospel, then he might very well have chosen to tell the story in his own words just up to the point of the angel’s appearance (since Peter skipped that, and it seemed a very valuable detail to include). In that case, adding on the ending as is would have worked just fine.
    Especially if a lot of people were already familiar with this ending and they eagerly anticipated that Mark was leading up to it. “The women went away and said nothing because they were afraid.” (Wait For It...) And then the Easter story is told in a way Mark’s readers might already have memorized and cherished. The tension is released in the perfect way.
    And that would also explain why a few copyists omitted it, because they already knew it as a separate book. Especially if Mark presented it as its own writing (maybe with a gap on the page or starting these verses on a new page of parchment). The copyists could tell this was tacked on; they just didn’t realize it was Mark himself who tacked it on, so they omitted it in their copy.
    Are there any obvious flaws to my theory?

    Comment


    • #3
      It certainly wasn't part of the original but I think it was generally accepted by most Christian leaders at the time the canon was finalized so for better or worse, it's in there.

      Doctrinally, I don't think there's anything unacceptable in there. People object to the mention of snake handling, as the snake handlers in Appalachia proof text it for their practices. However, it's not a promise that all Christians will be able to handle snakes (and anybody who tries it is putting the Lord to the test), but rather that some of the apostles will be able to handle snakes and be unhurt.
      Last edited by KingsGambit; 06-23-2018, 06:02 PM.
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        It certainly wasn't part of the original but I think it was generally accepted by most Christian leaders at the time the canon was finalized so for better or worse, it's in there.

        Doctrinally, I don't think there's anything unacceptable in there. People object to the mention of snake handling, as the snake handlers in Appalachia proof text it for their practices. However, it's not a promise that all Christians will be able to handle snakes (and anybody who tries it is putting the Lord to the test), but rather that some of the apostles will be able to handle snakes and be unhurt.
        The so called church canonization is a damnable false doctrine of the false churches which actually denies Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture upon being written and was give to the churches upon being written to begin with.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          The so called church canonization is a damnable false doctrine of the false churches which actually denies Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture upon being written and was give to the churches upon being written to begin with.
          A damnable doctrine?

          You do realize it was debated among early Christians which books were Scripture, right? Maybe the majority of Christianl leaders thought, for example, the Shepherd of Hermas was Scripture. It wasn't as self evident as you claim.
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            The so called church canonization is a damnable false doctrine of the false churches which actually denies Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture upon being written and was give to the churches upon being written to begin with.
            How do you think that the early Christians were supposed to distinguish between the biblical writings and the myriad of extra-biblical writings ranging from works like the Shepherd of Hermas and Didache to the Gospel of Peter or Epistle of Barnabas?

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              How do you think that the early Christians were supposed to distinguish between the biblical writings and the myriad of extra-biblical writings ranging from works like the Shepherd of Hermas and Didache to the Gospel of Peter or Epistle of Barnabas?
              Again, Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture when it was written. Not later when some irregular church or churches said so. A church which originally received the original document would have known the human writer and did. All the writers belonged to their own respective church.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                Again, Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture when it was written. Not later when some irregular church or churches said so. A church which originally received the original document would have known the human writer and did. All the writers belonged to their own respective church.
                You answered a question I didn't ask. How was someone to know which books were Holy Scripture and which weren't?

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Paul mentioned in his letters that he wrote other letters that are now lost to history. How would the audience have known that those letters were not scripture, but that some of his others were?
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    You answered a question I didn't ask. How was someone to know which books were Holy Scripture and which weren't?
                    So if one rejects the 66 books one cannot know. In one of those 66 books Jesus said to the unbelievers, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." -- John 8:47.

                    The claims of those writings to be Holy are supernatural. The claims of the Christian resurrection of Christ is supernatural. Regeneration of the believer is supernatural (2 Corinthians 5:17). Knowing God or not actually knowing God is supernatural (1 John 4:7).

                    If mere human judgement is how we are going to determine those writings are authentically supernatural, I do not think so.

                    There are two reasons and only two I remain a professing Christian. Knowing God Himself (John 17:3; 1 John 5:20). And the uncanny affirmation of the gospel of grace only by the saved (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). The means of this of course has been through my originally ignorant acceptance of those 66 books where Moses, the prophets and coming to believe in God's Christ according to them.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      There are a number of issues with the Mark 16:9-20 epilogue.

                      Let us discuss two of the issues:

                      1) Is the text Holy Scripture?

                      2) Was that epilogue written by Mark?

                      Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture when it was written. Something Jesus said to unbelievers in His day, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." -- John 8:47.

                      The manuscript evidence, only a very few of [our current copies of] manuscripts omit the reading (00.2%). The evidence being the majority of early Christians accepted it as Holy Scripture.
                      (1) Is it Scripture ? For Catholics, it is. Regardless of who may be the author.

                      (2) Was it written by St Mark ? That seems harder to determine.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We may note that there is an error in Mark 16:13:

                        "Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either." (Mk 16:12–13)

                        But they did believe!

                        "They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, 'It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.'Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread." (Lk 24:33–35)

                        So I conclude that this passage is not Scripture...

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                          It certainly wasn't part of the original but I think it was generally accepted by most Christian leaders at the time the canon was finalized so for better or worse, it's in there.

                          Doctrinally, I don't think there's anything unacceptable in there. People object to the mention of snake handling, as the snake handlers in Appalachia proof text it for their practices. However, it's not a promise that all Christians will be able to handle snakes (and anybody who tries it is putting the Lord to the test), but rather that some of the apostles will be able to handle snakes and be unhurt.
                          That could be metaphorical reference to demonic forces (Luke 10:19), or it could be an after-the-fact saying based on Acts 28:3. In the latter case, Paul certainly did not *intentionally* take up the serpent.
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          Nationalist Christian.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                          Justice for Matthew Perna!

                          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                            Paul mentioned in his letters that he wrote other letters that are now lost to history. How would the audience have known that those letters were not scripture, but that some of his others were?
                            Taken with 2 Pet. 3:15, this leads to the interesting possibility that God did not see fit to have all inspired Scripture preserved as canon.
                            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                            Beige Federalist.

                            Nationalist Christian.

                            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                            Justice for Matthew Perna!

                            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                              Taken with 2 Pet. 3:15, this leads to the interesting possibility that God did not see fit to have all inspired Scripture preserved as canon.
                              God knew what we would have of His word when He told Moses, ". . . man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." So when God spoke on Pentecost in other languages, and what He so spoke was not written down does not change our responsibility. Jesus chided, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

                              Now we do have what God meant for us to have. It is the false teachers who do not know God who say otherwise.

                              [Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 55:11; Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4; Matthew 5:18; John 8:47; Proverbs 30:5-6; etc.]
                              Last edited by 37818; 08-05-2018, 10:48 AM.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X