Search results

  1. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    Hardly anyone here would count this as a "major" Bible but the 2013 edition of the New World Bible, published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, ends Mark at 16:8 without any note about putative endings. The 1970 edition of the New World Bible, which claimed its NT was translated directly from...
  2. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    Ummm, I would have thought "the problem" meant the Longer Ending. But I have a facsimile edition of the 1611 KJV and there is no sidenote indicating any doubts or disputes over the Longer Ending. Which footnote did you mean??
  3. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    I had thought that the crucial issue about the ending of Mark was whether or not the Longer Ending was actually written by St. Mark. You already know my opinion on this. Now the issue seems to be whether the Longer Ending is entitled to be included simply because it's been "traditional" for...
  4. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    I honestly do not know if the Freer Logion is western or some other region. The Freer Gospels itself was sold out of Egypt in the 20th century. But I will accept your thanks.
  5. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    Back to the Freer Logion; there is the evidence of St. Jerome (middle 5th century), who quotes the first half of the Freer Logion in his Dialogue Against Pelagius, ii, 15: This is a source additional to the Freer Gospels. I can only speculate why, when Jerome says there were multiple...
  6. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    There appear to be a wide range of conclusions to the Gospel of Mark: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cr60955988&seq=7 In the Freer Gospels, Mark is the last of the four Gospels.
  7. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    Let me if I got this straight: Everybody believes that St. Mark wrote chapter 16 through verse 8. Nobody believes that St. Mark wrote the Shorter Ending, which does not appear in the KJV and the RV and some other translations; notwithstanding the Shorter Ending appears with (and before) the...
  8. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    I think that the existence of the Shorter Ending is evidence that the Longer Ending did not appreciably predate it.
  9. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    I have not heard this called the "intermediate ending", but rather the Shorter Ending. The Abrupt Ending is at verse 8, as in Sinaiticus ansd Vaticanus. The Longer Ending is verses 9-20, as in the KJV and most (or all) English translations. And there's the Shorter Ending, two unnumbered...
  10. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    I am willing to believe that the preservation of the Codex Sinaiticus was providential because it corrected many errors in the textus receptus.
  11. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    I very much appreciate your remarks (and, yes, the Longer Ending probably became popular fairly early in the second century), and, yes, popular theology will outweigh textual criticism on this. But, to go back to the title of this thread, I am strong in my belief that the omission or...
  12. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    Presumably, judging by it near-ubiquitness, the Longer Ending got patched onto Mark 16 very early - possibly the fourth or fifth centuries. I went through M.R. James's The Apocryphal New Testament, and plenty of mentions around the early Christian world of Mary Magdalene, including (at least...
  13. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    I am not sure if the original gospel deliberately ended abruptly at verse 8, there is a tempting theory about a last page somehow being separated and lost. But the Longer Ending does not smooth out the ending of verse 8. Most of the Longer Ending is innocuous; Irenaeus's apparent quotation of...
  14. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    I am sorry for delaying my response. I had mentioned many reasons for doubting the authenticity of the Longer Ending, but the most significant reason for me is that it doesn't fit the first half of chapter 16; it indicates the handiwork of a different author. The vocabulary includes words that...
  15. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    Notwithstanding some very sincere and erudite arguments for the authenticity of the Longer Ending, I still doubt its authenticity (altho I might make allowences for the penultimate verse which apparently was known to Irenaeus).
  16. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    I realize that it's a very weak hypothesis but I would think that a verse that says believers can pick up snakes and drink poison without injury would have gotten a reaqction; if it were in the text in the time of Irenaeus or any time prior to its appearance in the Freer Gospels (5th cent.)...
  17. S

     The removal of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the most wicked acts, the most insane beliefs and makes all new versions promoters hypocrites and con men.

    On the thread about the Textus Receptus, some people were kind enough to direcf me to Irenaeus's quote of Mark 16:19, "near the endof his Gospel", (Against Heresies, Book III, Chap. X, Para. 5) which tells us that Jesus is at God's right hand. I can quibble, without evidence, that this doesn't...
  18. S

     The Textus Receptus: How Bad Is It?

    I am grateful for everyone who went to the (considerable) trouble of finding Irenaeus's quotation for me.
  19. S

     The Textus Receptus: How Bad Is It?

    I have had trouble finding Irenaeus's citation of the Longer Ending and would appreciate a direct quote (in English) that not only shows the words from the Longer Ending but also the context of Irenaeus's quotation. I realize this is a lot to ask, but now that it's been referenced it seems very...
  20. S

     The Textus Receptus: How Bad Is It?

    As I pointed out, the early Greek NT manuscripts lacked punctuation. Thereafter punctuation was inserted by copyists and editors. These did not always match up and, as has been shown, different punctuation results in different meanings to verses. Whose punctuation is correct (and where)...
Back
Top