DOCSLIB.ORG

Faithful Sayings Pel Demons,’” a Paraphrase of 16:17

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Faithful Sayings Pel Demons,’” a Paraphrase of 16:17 ISSUE BULLETIN OF THE OLSEN record of the 7th Council of Carthage (ca. 258) under Cyprian cites a PARK CHURCH Vincentius of Thibaris who spoke of the Lord’s “divine precept com- OF CHRIST manded to His apostles, saying, ‘Go ye, lay on hands in my name, ex- 11.11 Faithful Sayings pel demons,’” a paraphrase of 16:17. Vincentius then quoted Matthew MARCH 15 28:19, a parallel to the Great Commission of Mark 16:16. 2009 thoritative. The earliest undis- While the question of Mark’s ending was known in the 4th century, “Until He puted example of this is the most understood this text as inspired and unquestioned. Both Ambrose comes whose 2nd century writings of (ca. 337-397) and Augustine (ca. 354-430) frequently quoted it. August- Services Irenaeus. In his Against Here- ine, in his Harmony of the Gospels, comments extensively on 16:12 (III. right it is” sies, he writes, “at the end of 24.69). This is significant because of the emphasis he placed on the val- Sunday: 9:30 AM Ezekiel 21:27 the Gospel, Mark says:†‘So ue of the Greek text. In On Christian Doctrine, he wrote, “As to the 10:20 AM then, after the Lord Jesus had books of the New Testament, again, if any perplexity arises from the di- 6:00 PM spoken to them, He was re- versities of the Latin texts, we must of course yield to the Greek, espe- Wednesday: 7:00 PM ceived up into heaven, and sat cially those that are found in the churches of greater learning and re- Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired? by Kyle Pope at the right hand of God’” search” (II.15, 22). Was Augustine familiar with Greek texts having Elders: (III.10.5). Here Irenaeus not 16:9-20 unknown to Eusebius and Jermone? John Chrysostom (ca. 347- Ken Ford only quotes 16:19, but claims 407) referred to Mark 16:9 in his Homily 38 on First Corinthians (5; 1 any students of the New Testament have found themselves puzzled that it is at the end of Mark. If Corinthians 15:8). Finally, Macarius Magnus (ca. 400) in Apocriticus Charles Kelley Mand confused by notes they encounter at the close of the Gospel of someone barely a generation answers pagan challenges to Mark 16:17-18 (III.16 and 24). From the Pat Ledbetter Mark claiming, “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient wit- after the composition of the 5th century onward, citations become too numerous to mention. nesses do not have Mark 16:9-20”1 Are such statements accurate? Should New Testament quotes it, how Deacons: we question the reliability or inspiration these verses? To answer these can we question the antiquity Conclusion Dean Bowers questions there are three bodies of evidence which demand our attention. and originality of this text? There is no question that at some point in the early history of Eddie Cook copying the text of Mark an issue arose over Mark 16:9-20. This influ- Bill Davis I. Greek Manuscripts In addition, Tatian (2nd enced copies and translations after it. Yet, Irenaeus quotes it “at the The basis of this claim rests largely on two century), in his harmony of Pat Goguen end of the Gospel” little more than a generation after the New Testa- fourth century manuscripts of the Greek New Tes- the Gospels called the Neil Ledbetter ment canon closed. This with the overwhelming evidence of manu- tament: Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus Diatessaron, includes 16:9- Jeff Nunn scripts, translations, and ancient testimony leaves no doubt that these (a). The first of these manuscripts has been listed 20. Many early writers refer Fred Perez words were in the original text of Mark as inspired by the Holy Spirit in the Vatican library catalog since at least 1475. to the Lord’s words in 16:18 (2 Timothy 3:16). Rusty Scott The second, was discovered in 1844 by the re- about being unhurt by drink- __________ nowned Greek scholar Constantin Tischendorf in a ing poison. Among these are 1 Evangelists: monastery in the Sinai desert just before it was Papias (ca. 110) from The New International Version inserts this note before its translation of 16:9- 20. As we demonstrate in this article, this statement assumes a great deal and about to be burned for firewood! Both manu- Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical His- Kyle Pope The Ending of Mark fails to express all the evidence at our disposal. Curtis Carwile scripts end the Gospel of Mark at in Codex Sinaiticus (a) tory III.39; Tertullian (ca. 2 We should note that while W has 16:9-20, it adds additional material. While verse eight. Since the time of 212) in Scorpiace 15; and that reflects alteration, its inclusion of the verses provides witness to their ac- Tischendorf’s discovery some scholars have contended that Hippolytus (ca. 230) in Apos- ceptance and existence. j 4700 Andrews Ave. this shorter ending reflects the “original reading.” tolic Tradition 36.1. The Amarillo TX 79106 806-352-2809 Does this prove that these verses were not original? Not at Faithful Sayings Issue 11.11 March 15, 2009 www.olsenpark.com all! Both a and B leave blanks at the end of Mark where the verses could be written. a leaves almost an entire blank col- Faithful Sayings Issue 11.11 March 15, 2009 umn and B leaves nearly a col- Beatty Papyri (p45), a 2nd or 3rd century pa- texts of his day, “there are almost as many forms of texts as there that 16:9-20, “is carried in few umn and a half. This may sug- pyri of the Gospels and Acts. Unfortunate- are copies” (Preface to the Four Gospels ). This in part led to his gospels, almost all the books of gest that the scribe knew some- ly, it is damaged before 4:36 and after 12:8. work towards an “authorized version” for the Roman world—the Greece not having this passage at thing was missing but didn’t However, the majority of extant manu- Latin Vulgate. In an age before the printing press, and photo imag- the end” (Question 3). Both have a copy with this section scripts include 16:9-20. Some of these are ing, human error and alteration always played a role in the produc- Eusebius and Jerome did not em- intact. To assume that these only slightly younger than a and B. For ex- tion of manuscripts. That didn’t mean God’s word was lost. Jesus phatically reject the reliability of manuscripts reflect the “origi- ample, Codex Alexandrinus (A), a 5th centu- said, “heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by 16:9-20 but only acknowledge nal reading” presumes there is ry text presented to Charles I in 1627 by no means pass away” (Matthew 24:35). It simply meant since er- that they were disputed. no earlier evidence for the ex- Cyril Lucar, Archbishop of Constantinople ror and alteration could occur, caution and comparison was needed istence of these verses. As we has 16:9-20. Codex Bezae (D) from the 5th- in preservation of the text. It is clear that Jerome’s shall see, that is not the case. 6th century, acquired by Theodore Beza The Ending of Mark words cannot be construed as re- in Codex Vaticanus (B) from a French monastery and given to the Just as the majority of Greek manuscripts preserve 16:9-20, so jection of the reliability of 16:9- There are over 5000 ex- Cambridge library in 1581 has both the Greek and Latin. It is also in the majority of ancient translations do as well. These include the 20 because of his own use of the tant manuscripts of the Greek Codices Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) from the 5th century and Syriac Peshitta (2nd-3rd century); the Sahidic Coptic (2nd-3rd centu- passage. In his work Against the New Testament. It is often as- Washingtonensis (W) from the 4th-5th century.2 A few manuscripts with ry); the majority of the Old Latin translations (2nd-4th century); the Pelagians, he uses 16:14 to ar- serted that a and B are the 16:9-20 add scribal notes indicating that some copies didn’t include it. Latin Vulgate (4th-5th century); the Gothic (4th century) – although it gue that the Apostles showed un- “oldest manuscripts” of the This simply identifies the fact that an omission was present in the is damaged in the middle of verse 12; many Armenian manuscripts belief (II.15). He even included New Testament. That is not manuscript tradition, but proves nothing about the originality of the (5th century) and Ethiopic manuscripts (5th century). To question the the verses in his own Latin true. There are many fragmen- passage. Must we reject Mark 16:9-20 in all other manuscripts because originality and inspiration of Mark 16:9-20 demands we disregard Vulgate translation. This is sig- tary papyri which predate both of two manuscripts which may have left space for its inclusion? the efforts of centuries of scholars and translators. These were peo- nificant because Jerome stated in texts. One of the most signifi- ple who carefully compared and investigated the text, believing it a Letter to Marcella regarding cant of these is the Chester II. Ancient Translations to be the inspired word of God. Can we so easily reject their schol- the unreliable form of the Latin Very early in the history of the transmission of the New Testament arship? texts, “I have wished to recall text, translations were made from the original Greek into languages them to the Greek original from where the gospel spread.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Making Sense of the End of Mark Pastor Russ Reaves Immanuel Baptist Church, Greensboro, NC January 27, 2009
    Making Sense of the End of Mark Pastor Russ Reaves Immanuel Baptist Church, Greensboro, NC January 27, 2009 Anyone who has ever read the Gospel of Mark carefully has likely noticed that most Bibles contain a footnote, a marginal note, or some other device or feature to indicate that there are questions about the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. Almost every modern English version does in some way. Following are some examples of how this is done: • A bracketed heading before verses 9-20 which states, “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” 1 • A footnote containing explanations similar to the following: “Some of the earliest manuscripts (or “mss.”) do not contain verses (or “vv.”) 9-20.” 2 • A footnote that reads, “Verses 9 through 20 are not found in the most ancient manuscripts, but may be considered an appendix giving additional facts.” 3 • A heading before verses 9-20 which reads, “An Ancient Appendix” or something similar. 4 • A footnote that offers a more detailed description of the situation, such as the following or similar: “Vv. (verses) 9-20 are bracketed in NU (an abbreviation for the Greek text known as Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and United Bible Societies Greek New Testament ) as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (two Greek manuscripts dating to the fourth century), although nearly all other mss. (manuscripts) of Mark contain them.” 5 • Bracketing around verses 9-20, with an explanatory notation in the footnotes stating, “Mark 16:9-20 [the portion in brackets] is contained only in later manuscripts,” or similar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ending of the Gospel of Mark
    The ending of Mark A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 2b The various endings of Mk BY WIELAND WILLKER Bremen, online published th 12 edition 2015 © all rights reserved Contents: The manuscript evidence ...................................................................................................... 3 Discussion of the external evidence ................................................................................. 4 Introductory comments in the manuscripts .................................................................... 6 Church fathers evidence ...................................................................................................... 8 Arguable evidence from the fathers .............................................................................. 13 Can a book end with ga.r? .................................................................................................... 17 Excursus: Attempts to reconstruct a lost ending ....................................................... 18 General Discussion .............................................................................................................. 22 Important literature .......................................................................................................... 24 Other various literature ................................................................................................... 25 The short ending ................................................................................................................. 27
    [Show full text]
  • Pericope Adulterae 1/20
    András Handl: Tertullianus on the Pericope Adulterae 1/20 TERTULLIANUS ON THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE (JOHN 7,53–8,11) Abstract Although Terullianus is deeply engaged in discussions on Christian marriage, adultery, and on the remission of (grave) sins, he never addressed the story of the woman caught in adultery known today from the Gospel of John. This essay argues that his silence cannot be explained by suppression because of the explosive nature of the story in relation to penitential discipline and to his own views and arguments. Rather, it proposes that the pericope adulterae was unknown in Carthage at his time. 1. Introduction The story of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John (7,53–8,11) represents one of the most mysterious New Testament passages. Omitted in early manuscripts, the circulation and dissemination of the pericope adulterae (henceforth the PA) is controversially discussed. Already C. R. Gregory (1846–1917) claimed that the PA had been “very often read, and especially at a very early time.”1 H. Riesenfeld (1913–2008) assessed that the Latin translation of the passage ”appears sporadically before the Vulgate and then in the entire Vulgate tradition.”2 This judgement has been criticised by T. O'Loughlin. Based on the number of extant Vetus Latina fragments, he came to the conclusion that the PA “was more likely [included] than not to have been present [in the Vetus Latina] prior to the dominance of the Vulgate.”3 According to J. W. Knust, “the pericope was present only in a few copies of John in the early second century―which seems to be a likely conclusion given the patristic and manuscript evidence.”4 In a statement―often considered as the actual communis opinio―, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Kilpatrick' Greek New Testament Edition of 1958
    Early Readers, Scholars and Editors of the New Testament Texts and Studies 11 Series Editor H. A. G. Houghton Editorial Board Jeff W. Childers Christina M. Kreinecker Alison G. Salvesen Peter J. Williams Text and Studies is a series of monographs devoted to the study of Biblical and Patristic texts. Maintaining the highest scholarly standards, the series includes critical editions, studies of primary sources, and analyses of textual traditions. Early Readers, Scholars and Editors of the New Testament Papers from the Eighth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament Edited by H. A. G. Houghton 2014 Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014 ܚ ISBN 978-1-4632-0411-2 ISSN 1935-6927 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (8th : 2013 : University of Birmingham) Early readers, scholars, and editors of the New Testament : papers from the Eighth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament / edited by H.A.G. Houghton. pages cm. -- (Texts and studies, ISSN 1935-6927 ; 11) Proceedings of the Eighth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, held in the Orchard Learning Resource Centre at the University of Birmingham, March 4-6, 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LATIN NEW TESTAMENT OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, Spi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, Spi
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, SPi THE LATIN NEW TESTAMENT OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, SPi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, SPi The Latin New Testament A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts H.A.G. HOUGHTON 1 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2017, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © H.A.G. Houghton 2016 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2016 Impression: 1 Some rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, for commercial purposes, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. This is an open access publication, available online and unless otherwise stated distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution –Non Commercial –No Derivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), a copy of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2015946703 ISBN 978–0–19–874473–3 Printed in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
    [Show full text]
  • 301 Matt. 10:3 “Lebbaeus, Whose Surname Was Thaddaeus” (TR & AV
    301 Matt. 10:3 “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus” (TR & AV) {A} Preliminary Textual Discussion. Scribes sometimes missed short words. E.g., here at Matt. 10:3 in Lectionary 1968, the “ o (the) tou ([son] of)” before “ Alphaiou (Alphaeus),” is omitted. But for our purposes this does not affect the relevant reading we are considering. Principal Textual Discussion. At Matt. 10:3 the TR’s Greek reading, “Lebbaios (Lebbaeus) o (who) epikletheis (was surnamed) Thaddaios (Thaddaeus),” i.e., “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus,” is supported by the majority Byzantine Text e.g., W 032 (5th century, which is Byzantine in Matt. 1-28; Luke 8:13-24:53), Sigma 042 (late 5th / 6th century, with diverse spelling, “Lebbeos ”), N 022 (6th century, with diverse spellings, “ Lebbeos ” and “ Thaddeos ”); Minuscules 1010 (12th century) and 597 (13th century); and Lectionary 1968 (1544 A.D.). It is also supported as Latin, “ Lebbeus (Lebbaeus) qui (who) nominatur (is named) Taddeus (Thaddaeus ),” in old Latin Version f (6th century). It is further supported by the ancient church Greek writers, the Apostolic Constitutions (3rd or 4th century) and Chrysostom (d. 407). However another reading, Variant 1 , may be reconstructed from the Latin as Greek, “Thaddaios (Thaddaeus)” (cf. Variant 2 Greek and Latin forms). It is followed as Latin, “Thaddaeus ” in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (5th century), and as Latin, “ Thaddeus ” in old Latin Versions aur (7th century), 1 (7th / 8th century), ff1 (10th / 11th century), and c (12th / 13th century). It is also followed by the ancient church Latin writers, Jerome (d. 420) and Augustine (d.
    [Show full text]
  • Faithful Sayings Be Inspired and Unquestioned
    ISSUE BULLETIN OF While the question of Mark 16:9 in his Homily 38 on First Corinthians (5; 1 Corinthians 15:8). And THE OLSEN Mark’s ending may have been finally, Macarius Magnes (ca. 400) in his Apocriticusin answering challeng- PARK CHURCH known in the fourth century, es made by pagans to specific Scriptures directly addressed objections to OF CHRIST most understood this text to Mark 16:17-18 (3.16 and 24). By the fifth century onward, citations from 21.30 Faithful Sayings be inspired and unquestioned. this passage become too numerous to even mention. July 28, Both Ambrose (ca. 337-397) Conclusion 2019 and Augustine (ca. 354-430) There is no question that at some point in the early history of copy- frequently quoted from Mark ing and transcribing the text of Mark an issue arose regarding Mark 16:9-20. Augustine, in his Har- 16:9-20 and its inclusion in the text. This influenced copies and transla- mony of the Gospels, com- tions which came after it. Even so, Irenaeus quotes the text little more Services ments extensively on Mark than a generation after the close of the New Testament canon, claim- Sunday: 9:00 AM 16:12 (3.24.69). This is par- ing that it was “at the end of the Gospel.” This together with the over- 10:00 AM ticularly significant because of whelming evidence of manuscripts, translations, and ancient testimony the great emphasis he places 11:00 AM leaves no doubt that these words were in the original text of Mark as Wednesday: 7:00 PM on the value of the Greek text inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim.
    [Show full text]
  • Textual Criticism Outline
    Textual Criticism Dr. Daniel Wallace BiblicalTraining.org Copyright 2018 I. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism A. Definition and Goal – Lesson 1 1. Definition In general: a. The study of the copies of any written document whose original (=the autograph) is unKnown or non-existent, for the primary purpose of determining the exact wording of the original 2. Definition for the New Testament: a. The study of the handwritten copies of the New Testament whose original (=the autograph) is unKnown or non-existent, for the primary purpose of determining the exact wording of the original 3. Why NTTC is Necessary a. In this respect, NTTC is no different from the textual criticism for any other major religion b. Even the Qur’an manuscripts have errors in them (though not admitted by Muslims) 4. Secondary Objective a. To trace the changes to the text in various places and times to gain a window on the shape of ancient Christianity b. We need to distinguish between manuscripts [MSS] of the NT and MSS of other early ‘Christian’ writings c. For the most part, other early Christian writings are far more corrupt than NT manuscripts [NT MSS] d. For example: The Gospel of Thomas had major textual upheavals, as seen by the four MSS of Thomas we have today 1. See: Timothy Ricchuiti, “TracKing Thomas: A Text-Critical LooK at the Transmission of the Gospel of Thomas” (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011) e. Until a few years ago, everyone thought they Knew what ‘original text’ meant 1. 1999: Eldon Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term “Original Text” in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Harvard Theological Review 92 (1999) 245- 81 f.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Testament: We Don't Have What They Originally Had Richard
    The New Testament: We Don’t Have What They Originally Had Richard Carrier, Ph.D. www.richardcarrier.info Problem #1 • All scholars agree no manuscript reflects the original, and all are quite divergent from it • The text in modern bibles is a hypothetical creation of 20th century scholars • But scholars are often wrong in their judgments (many of their decisions are dubious or debatable) • In fact they often disagree with each other and admit to being uncertain about countless of their textual decisions • The NT text is therefore a product of fallible human opinions Problem #2 • This means for ~ 2,000 years Christians had the wrong bible, a NT full of errors & distortions • Modern bibles are better but still print readings we know are false (and fail to mention hundreds of cases where the original reading is uncertain or disputed) • And you can’t just assume the reconstructed text is the correct text because scholars remain in disagreement and uncertain about many points • So you have to be very suspicious and careful when arguing from the text of the New Testament Problem # 3 • Rate of error and distortion in visible period (~ 200-600 A.D.) is very high (by 600 A.D., 5-10% of the text is wrong). • Rate of error behind the curtain can be expected to be no less (there is no evidence otherwise). • Therefore, there must have been many changes behind the curtain that won’t show in any surviving manuscripts. • In fact the minimum rate of distortion would be 1% per century, so for the first 100 years at least 1 in 100 verses will have been distorted before we get any manuscripts to detect them by.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Syriac Gospels Or
    THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS OR EVANGELION DA-MEPHARRESH£ ; BEING THE TEXT OF THE SINAI OR SYRO-ANTIOCHENE PALIMPSEST, INCLUDING THE LATEST ADDITIONS AND EMENDATIONS, WITH THE VARIANTS OF THE CURETONIAN TEXT, CORROBORATIONS FROM MANY OTHER MSS., AND A LIST OF QUOTATIONS FROM ANCIENT A UTHORS. EDITED BY AGNES SMITH LEWIS, Hon. D.D. (Heidelberg), LL.D. (St. Andrew's), Ph.D. (Halle-Wittemberg). WITH FOUR FACSIMILES. LONDON: WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 14, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden. M C M X. LONDON : PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, DUKE STREET, STAMFORD STREET, S.E. CONTENTS. PAGE Preface i Introduction iii Notes on Remarkable Passages xiv Bibliography xxxvii Appendix III. —List of Important Omissions xlvii — Appendix II. List of Quotations from Syriac Fathers 301 Some Agreements Appendix I. —Addenda and Corrigenda 271 SYRIAC TEXT I — 268, jjLfioi — p^ Abbreviations used in the Similia V Errata Ill Appendix IV.—Changes in the English Translation I^^^mhd -foy^*^/^ Appendix V.—Index to the Arabic Diatessaron ... FACSIMILES. Sinai Palimpsest: Matthew!. 1-17(7 r „ „ Matphew xviii. 9-21 47 Curetonian Gospels: Luke xxi. 12^-2 6a 193 „ „ John xiv. 21-23, 26^-28 254 M38989 PREFACE. After the publication of Dr. Burkitt's valuable book, the Evangelion da'Mepharreske, in two volumes, it might seem as if a new edition of the Sinai Palimpsest text were not required. Dr. Burkitt's book is essentially an edition of the Curetonian. As such, it is very- accurate, leaving little to be desired. But it can never supply the want of an edition of the Sinai text. The total absence in it of any enumeration of the Palimpsest folios shows that it was not compiled with such a purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
    The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 © 2007 James Edward Snapp, Jr. [Permission is granted to reproduce this material, except for the essay by Dr. Bruce Terry in chapter 15, in electronic form (as a computer-file) and to make printouts on a computer-printer.] Considerable effort has been made to accurately cite sources throughout this composition, including materials in the public domain. If somehow an author’s work has not been adequately credited, the author or publisher is encouraged to contact me so that the oversight may be amended. - J.E.S. Be sure to consult the footnotes as you go. Some of them significantly clarify or reinforce the text. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: Preface (and Notes About Canonicity and Earlier Studies) PART ONE: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE CHAPTER TWO: External Evidence: A Panoramic View CHAPTER THREE: Patristic Evidence CHAPTER FOUR: Lectionary Evidence CHAPTER FIVE: Versional Evidence CHAPTER SIX: A Review of External Evidence CHAPTER SEVEN: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus CHAPTER EIGHT: Codex Bobiensis and the Short Ending CHAPTER NINE: The Long Ending’s Presence in Separate Text-types CHAPTER TEN: The Close Relationships of Witnesses Against the Long Ending CHAPTER ELEVEN: Sixty Early Witnesses PART TWO: MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS CHAPTER TWELVE: How to Lose an Ending CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Explaining the External Evidence PART THREE: INTERNAL EVIDENCE CHAPTER FOURTEEN: “Efobounto Gar” CHAPTER FIFTEEN: The Style of the Long Ending of Mark (by Dr. Bruce Terry) CHAPTER SIXTEEN: A Detailed Look at Internal Evidence Appendix One: A List of Technical Terms and an Explanation of Some Symbols Appendix Two: Mark and Proto-Mark Appendix Three: Some Doctrinal Facets of the Issue Footnotes CHAPTER ONE: Preface For centuries, the Christian church has regarded Mark 16:9-20, the “Long Ending” of Mark (a.k.a.
    [Show full text]
  • Wstęp Do Nowego Testamentu Νµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθ Ωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερ Τψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυ
    θωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωε ρτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψ υιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιο πασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασ δφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγ ηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκ λζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξ χϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβWstęp do Nowego Testamentu νµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθ ωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερ τψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυ ιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπ ασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδLeszek Jańczuk φγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγη ϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλ ζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχ ϖβνµρτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθω ερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτ ψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυι οπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπα σδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφ γηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕ κλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζ ξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖ βνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµ θωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωε ρτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψ υιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµρτψυιοπασ δφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγ ηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκ λζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξ χϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβ νµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθ ωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερ τψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυ ιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπ ασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδ φγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγη ϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλ ζξχϖβνµρτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβν Spis treści Wst ęp ........................................................................................................................................................6 Nazwa Nowego Testamentu .....................................................................................................................6 Autorytet
    [Show full text]