Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mark 16: 9- 20
#1
Shlama All,

I've found this site:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV

which says that "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9?20"

My question is why these verses do appear in the Bible?

Tawdee,

Rudolf <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#2
It's in The Real Bible, but not in a few corrupt and mistake filled Greek manuscripts, which some foolishly think are best because they are older copies than the vast Majority of Manuscripts, which contain the rest of Mark's Gospel.

Here is how Mark's Gospel would end, if these few Manuscripts were the original version. After reading the whole story of the Good News about Jesus Christ...here is how the book would end. ---> "And when they heard, they fled and left the sepulchre; for astonishment and trembling had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were in fear." Mark 16:8

Do we really think that is how Mark would have ended it?

Witnesses?

1: According to St. Ireneaus in about 180 A.D., the Gospel did indeed go past 16:8. Where he shows us what was in his very anceint copy of the New Testament, where he quotes ---> "...and conferred on those that believe in Him the power ?to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy,?" vs 17-18 and ---> "Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ?So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;? vs 19. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

2: The Peshitta has the passage as well...and its text is at least 100 years older than St. Ireneaus' personal copy. The Diatessaron also has it in its text from about 165 A.D.

3: The Majority of Greek copies and other versions contain the original ending verses of St. Mark's Gospel.

It's Original.


Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#3
Bram wrote
Quote:My question is why these verses do appear in the Bible?
If people knew why they appear or not appear then Bible would be unanimous.
What I know is that Greek manuscripts are corrupted as their products we have
corrupted western Bibles.
Peshitto manuscripts have been under control of the western powers and
correspond to the western twists.
All what we have is Peshitta manuscripts are matching between themselves cause they were independent from the western influence.
Its up to you what to choose.
Welcome to the forum.
Reply
#4
Shlama Akhay,

Chuck wrote:

Quote:The Peshitta has the passage as well...and its text is at least 100 years older than St. Ireneaus' personal copy. The Diatessaron also has it in its text from about 165 A.D.


My question:
Does the Diatessaron exist at present day? (or at least the copy of it?)

Quote:The Majority of Greek copies and other versions contain the original ending verses of St. Mark's Gospel. It's Original.

My question:
would you mind inform me the name of Greek manuscripts that contain the original ending verses of Mark 16 : 9-20?

IPOstapyuk wrote:

Quote:All what we have is Peshitta manuscripts are matching between themselves cause they were independent from the western influence.

My question:

May I know the Peshitta manuscripts name/its picture?

I read this site: http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/msviewe...s=6&id=129
Does this manuscripts that you mentioned previously or else?

Thank you for your enlightment. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Rudolf
Reply
#5
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/44443013">http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/44443013</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Mingana/Syriac_148/table/">http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Minga ... 148/table/</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/khabouris/files/Khabouris.pdf">http://www.dukhrana.com/khabouris/files/Khabouris.pdf</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/ms/">http://dukhrana.com/ms/</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#6
Shlama Akhi,

It's a valuable information for me

IPOstapyuk wrote

Quote:<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/44443013">http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/44443013</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Mingana/Syriac_148/table/">http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Minga ... 148/table/</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/khabouris/files/Khabouris.pdf">http://www.dukhrana.com/khabouris/files/Khabouris.pdf</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/ms/">http://dukhrana.com/ms/</a><!-- m -->

My question:

what's the meaning of the following year? (the red sign)
Does it mean that the manuscript that contain Mark 16 : 9-20 had been found in 10th/11th century?

[Image: c7y7tqer40ph.jpg]

Talking about Khabouris manuscripts, according to the section of History of Peshitta in peshitta.org that it is found in 4th century A.D. Does it contain whole Mark or just only a few portions?

Tawdee. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Rudolf
Reply
#7
Quote:Does the Diatessaron exist at present day? (or at least the copy of it?)

Yes, in a few translations of the original Aramaic. The best one is an Arabic translation from an Aramaic copy. It can by read in an English translation of the Arabic as well.

Quote:would you mind inform me the name of Greek manuscripts that contain the original ending verses of Mark 16 : 9-20?

If I did that, it would take many pages... there are over 6,000 Greek Manuscripts...and ALL but 2 or 3 of them contain Mark 16:9-20. AND...two of these copies, "Vaticanus" and "Sinaiticus" disagree with each other in over 3,000 places. So which one is the right text?

99% of ALL Greek copies have them, and 99% of all other ancient language versions and all Patristic quotations show the verses.

Here is the whole nine yards...please read this article at the link, and the info below to get a good idea about the evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is indeed Original.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704">https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcont ... rticle=704</a><!-- m -->

"The last twelve verses, 16:9?20, are not present in two 4th-century manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the earliest complete manuscripts of Mark.

Codex Vaticanus has a blank column after ending at 16:8 and placing kata Markon, "according to Mark". There are three other blank columns in Vaticanus, in the Old Testament, but they are each due to incidental factors in the production of the codex?a change to the column-format, a change of scribes, and the conclusion of the Old Testament portion of the text?whereas the blank column between Mark 16:8 and the beginning of Luke is deliberately placed.

Although it has been suggested that Codex Vaticanus may be reflecting a Western order of the gospels with Mark as the last book (Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark), the scholars making this suggestion (such as Daniel Wallace) have not explained why any scribe would feel that the normal blank space at the end of a Gospels-codex would be worth perpetuating in a new copy in which the Gospels were arranged in a different order.

Sinaiticus ends with 16:8 and euangelion kata Markon, "the gospel according to Mark," on a page which is part of a replacement-sheet (consisting of four pages) on which the text of Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 was written by the proof-reader of the manuscript. The text on these four pages was not written by the copyist who wrote the text on the surrounding pages; the pages containing Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 written by that copyist were removed, and are not extant. (This is unfortunately not mentioned by Metzger; nor is it indicated in the UBS or Nestle-Aland textual apparatus. Nor do they mention Vaticanus' blank column.) On the replacement-pages, the copyist's rate of letters per column varies erratically.

At first he wrote normally, but then he used compact lettering until Mark 15:19. At that point, the lettering begins to be written in stretched-out lettering, until the end of Mark 16:8 in column 10. The text of Luke 1:1-56, beginning at the top of column 11, is written in very compact lettering. This indicates that the copyist who made these four replacement-pages in Sinaiticus began by writing the text from Luke (beginning at the top of the 11th column) and then went back to add the text from Mark. After accidentally omitting several lines in 15:47-16:1, he had to stretch his lettering to avoid leaving a blank column between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1.

Although the copyist, as proofreader, must have seen other blank columns in the codex and considered them unobjectionable, he apparently considered it worthwhile to avoid allowing a blank column to appear between the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke. When this is considered alongside the uniquely emphatic decorative design which follows Mark 16:8 in Sinaiticus, it seems clear that the copyist who made Sinaiticus' replacement-pages was aware of verses 9-20, and desired to prevent the possibility of their inclusion. The copyist who made this replacement-page in Codex Sinaiticus was very probably one of the scribes who helped produce Codex Vaticanus.

Another manuscript, minuscule 304 (12th century) omits the last twelve verses. New examinations of 304 are warranted, especially considering that it has not been shown that 304 contains a subscription, or closing-title, after 16:8, although such a feature was persistently added at the end of a book by copyists in all eras. The absence of a colophon after 16:8 in 304 suggests that 304's copyist did not regard that as the end of the book."



.
Reply
#8
Yes, 1199 year.
On the other site it is not big problem.
The bigger problem is Trinity formula at the end of Matthew.
Logically, It should be admitted either
There was very early insertion or the Apostles put aside
the command and baptized only in the name of Jesus.
Reply
#9
Eshu' M'shikha said: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Matt 28:19

Eshu' M'shikha said: "I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. John 5:43

Eshu' M'shikha said: ?All authority has been given to me in Heaven and in the earth;..." Matt 28:18

Shlikha Kepa said: "be baptized, each of you, in the name of Eshu' M'shikha..." Acts 2:38

Shlikha Kepa said: "So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Eshu' M'shikha" Acts 4:48


Peace,
Chuck
Reply
#10
Chuck,
many tried to explain this formula but... <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

Matthew 28:19 - Go ye, therefore, and instruct all nations; and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 28:20 - And teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always, unto the consummation of the worlds Amen.

But, nobody in the NT observed this formula only we blindly observe this formula
not understanding what we are doing.

Maybe, it could be translated a bit differently from the Semitic language.
Gramatically correct if it would be : "bshem d'avi vdabre vdrukha dkudsha".
Which would be <in the name of the father and of the son and of the spirit of holiness>

But, in the semitic text it is: "bshem avi vabre vrukha dkudsha".
Looks to me wrong Semitic structure which is translated <in the name
the father and the son and the spirit of holiness>.
On the other side we meet same structure:
Acts 4:18 - And they called them, and commanded them not to speak nor to teach at all in the name of Jesus.
"...bshim yeshu."
Different:
Acts 9:27 - But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the legates, and related to them how the Lord appeared to him in the way, and how he conversed with him; and how, in Damascus, he had discoursed openly in the name of Jesus.
"...bashme d'yeshu.".

I am not expert in Semitic language but this is just a hint to make this topic clearer.
Looks like together father, son and the holy spirit share some common name
using wrong grammatical structure. Then, what is this name??? <!-- s:tellme: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/tellme.gif" alt=":tellme:" title="Tell Me" /><!-- s:tellme: -->


By the way, repetition and, and in the formula is of Semitic origin which is present even in Greek text.

I am not for or against the formula but the logic cannot accept it since this
translational formula contradicts to all the New Testament text. <!-- s:| --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/neutral.gif" alt=":|" title="Neutral" /><!-- s:| -->
Let us just put aside for a while our theological or primacy biases but think logically and linguistically what we have.
Reply
#11
Shlama Akhi Chuck & IPOstapyuk,

Thank you for the explanation of this chapter and I'm blessed of your explanation.
I think it's enough for now.

Tawdee,

Rudolf <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#12
Chuck,

How well are you educated concerning the Greek manuscripts? I ask this because you have taken on a question of mine that I was going to ask on another New Testament Bible forum. It has to do with Sinaiticus being compared along side with Vaticanus. I have read from previous source that Tischondorf said that the same scribe copied both the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus manuscripts. Now these 2 Greek manuscripts are of the same textual family being from the Alexandrian textual family; am I correct?

I would like to ask you (or anyone here information about Sinaiticus and Vaticuanus) how well THESE TWO MANUSCRIPTS OVERLAP OR REFLECT EACHOTHER?

Does the reading of these two manuscripts together (side by side if you will) HARMONIZE pretty well or is there alot of difference between the two yielding a rugged or discontinuity type comparison?

How well would you rate the harmony between these two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) on a scale of one to ten with (1) being the least quality of harmony between the 2 to the point where it is eggregious, or (10) the highest quality of harmany or agreement between these 2 (like, you would probably give a "10" when comparing two Peshitta manuscripts.

I go a little bit out of the way to ask this because SO MUCH STOCK, in the field of textual criticism has been put on these 2 manuscripts that it marginalizes most all the other New Testament manuscripts and really puts very little emphasis on the Byzantine manuscripts copies. Thank you for your time.

Kindly,

mike

Reply
#13
chuck,

You stated that there are around 3,000 varients between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in one of your posts. Can you site any authoritative or reliable source for this? For both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus include almost ALL the books of the New Testament, which (from my knowledge) Vaticanus is missing a few chapters from the book of Hebrews and it contains about 85% of the New Testament. Believe it or not, that is not a high number of varients in new textual criticism between these 2 manuscripts. Bear in mind that , like I said, both these codices include the entire New Testament (just about).

And like my last post, I have always wanted to know how much difference there is between the 2.

Kindly,

Mike
Reply
#14
I'll have to edit my above post...those 3,000 plus variants are found in the 4 Gospels alone.

According to Dean Burgon: "It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

According to Herman C. Hoskier, there are, without counting errors of iotacism, 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows:
Matthew: 656
Mark: 567
Luke: 791
John: 1022

According to a number of contemporary Greek scholars, these two manuscripts are said to represent two different textual families of the Alexandrian text-type. The Codex Sinaiticus' John 1:1?8:38 represents another difference: the Western text-type. Additionally, chapters 16 and 21 in John include some Western readings, hence why the number of differences between these two codices in John is greater than in the other Gospels.

The "Alexandrian text type" is not actually the older text form, in many instances, where I have found many Byzantine variants qouted in much older sources than these two Unical Ms, which are said to retain the oldest Greek text form... In many places...not so.

Jerome knew about these Ms...and he didn't use them...the Greek Orthodox Church knows about them, and yet they have always chosen to stick with the Byzantine Text type, which they have always used.

Like it or not...these two Ms., are mistake filled, incomplete texts of corrupted copies of the Greek version of the New Testament.

I'm with the Greek Orthodox Church on this judgment, and they should know...it's their NT version. In recent years, the Church of Rome has abandoned their Latin Vulgate text, which is not from these two Ms., and have followed Westcot and Hort in the text of their NAB and in their use of the NRSV in their study Bibles. Many of the Protestant groups have also abandoned the Byzantine text form, for the Alexandrian version in recent years, as you might know. Which of their new translations do you say is the best? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

So... I'll ask you the question again, Mike. Which Greek version text type do you say is the one from Apostolic times? The Western, The Byzantine, or The Alexandrian?

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#15
Chuck,

Thanks so much for that. I really didn't know that there was that degree of dissonance between these two manuscripts. Really, that bad. This should be exposed to the light some more.

As to your question, I lean more (and now alot more ) to the Byzantine textual tradition. And I should look into this more.

Take care and Jehovah give more grace to us to serve Him better.

Kindly,

Mike
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)