Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

NT Gospel Mark has a note in Chapter 16:

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.] (NIV)

Mark 16:9 The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.(ASV)

Mark 16:9 Later mss add vv 9-20 (NASB)

 

What is this all about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow i'd also like to know what this means. A google search gave me this informative quick-read article:

_____________________________________________________________

Question: "Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?"

Answer: 
Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later by scribes. The King James Version of the Bible, as well as the New King James, contains vv. 9-20 because the King James used medieval manuscripts as the basis of its translation. Since 1611, however, older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv. 9-20 were not in the original Gospel of Mark.

In addition, the fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9–20, although they doubtless knew those other endings existed. In the second century, Justin Martyr and Tatian knew about other endings. Irenaeus, also, in A.D. 150 to 200, must have known about this long ending because he quotes verse 19 from it. So, the early church fathers knew of the added verses, but even by the fourth century, Eusebius said the Greek manuscripts did not include these endings in the originals.

The internal evidence from this passage also casts doubt on Mark as the author. For one thing, the transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Greek word translated “now” that begins v. 9 should link it to what follows, as the use of the word “now” does in the other synoptic Gospels. However, what follows doesn’t continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, describing instead Jesus’ appearing to Mary Magdalene. There’s no transition there, but rather an abrupt and bizarre change, lacking the continuity typical of Mark’s narrative. The author should be continuing the story of the women based on the word “now,” not jumping to the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Further, for Mark to introduce Mary Magdalene here as though for the very first time (v. 9) is odd because she had already been introduced in Mark’s narrative (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1), another evidence that this section was not written by Mark. 

Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark’s Gospel. These last verses don’t read like Mark’s. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark, and the structure is very different from the familiar structure of his writing. The title “Lord Jesus,” used in verse 19, is never used anywhere else by Mark. Also, the reference to signs in vv. 17-18 doesn’t appear in any of the four Gospels. In no account, post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, or laying hands on the sick. So, both internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark.

While the added ending offers no new information, nor does it contradict previously revealed events and/or doctrine, both the external and internal evidence make it quite certain that Mark did not write it. In reality, ending his Gospel in verse 8 with the description of the amazement of the women at the tomb is entirely consistent with the rest of the narrative. Amazement at the Lord Jesus seems to be a theme with Mark. “They were amazed at his teaching” (Mark 1:22); “They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves” (Mark 1:27); “He healed the paralytic, and they were all amazed and were glorifying God saying, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this’” (Mark 2:12). Astonishment at the work of Jesus is revealed throughout Mark’s narrative (Mark 4:41; 5:15,33, 42; 6:51; 9:6, 15, 32; 10:24, 32; 11:18; 12:17; 16:5). Some, or even one, of the early scribes, however, apparently missed the thematic evidence and felt the need to add a more conventional ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider that Mark is the earliest Gospel, yet it only mentions an empty tomb and no resurrection stories.

Then, later, uncorroborated stories such as this appeared in Matthew:

51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

You'd think a mass zombie resurrection would be noteworthy to other historians or even other Gospel authors, but nope, only Matthew mentions this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

NT Gospel Mark has a note in Chapter 16:

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.] (NIV)

Mark 16:9 The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.(ASV)

Mark 16:9 Later mss add vv 9-20 (NASB)

 

What is this all about?

The note in our Bibles simply tell the truth, but which ending that is the original has not been possible for the scientists to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

The note in our Bibles simply tell the truth, but which ending that is the original has not been possible for the scientists to decide.

so there is a possibility it could be false?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The possibility that Mark 9-20 is false can not be excluded. But it could also have fallen out  during copying. Which scenario is correct has not yet been possible to determine. Findings of much older documents could solve the question. Try Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Qa'im said:

Consider that Mark is the earliest Gospel, yet it only mentions an empty tomb and no resurrection stories.

Then, later, uncorroborated stories such as this appeared in Matthew:

51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

You'd think a mass zombie resurrection would be noteworthy to other historians or even other Gospel authors, but nope, only Matthew mentions this.

I agree. Verse 51-53 most likely never happened. The same with the Virgin birth that Mark also is unaware of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, andres said:

I agree. Verse 51-53 most likely never happened. The same with the Virgin birth that Mark also is unaware of. 

 

17 minutes ago, andres said:

The possibility that Mark 9-20 is false can not be excluded. But it could also have fallen out  during copying. Which scenario is correct has not yet been possible to determine. Findings of much older documents could solve the question. Try Wikipedia.

sorry im a little confused. So obviously, there are some missing things and/or changed things in the bible --- how reliable can we really say the bible is? It's more then fair to say that it pretty much is reliable enough and that we can't undermine or neglect it's entirety, but what can we say about it as being 100% authentic? not refuting i am now just curious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not doubt that the Gospel writers believed in what they wrote. But since no human is infallible there can be detailes that are not entirely correct. I see the gospel writers as sort of journalists reporting what they have heard from the first generation of Christians. The earliest 4 have been included in the Bible, (Thomas gospel could be older, it is difficult to date) and they sometimes contradict each other. Details not really important in my view. The three verses Qa'im refers is no contradiction, it is just not very believable for the reasons given by Qa'im. The same reasons as for the Virgin birth, a myth that the Quran inherited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shiaman14,

 

NT Gospel Mark has a note in Chapter 16:

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.] (NIV)

Mark 16:9 The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.(ASV)

Mark 16:9 Later mss add vv 9-20 (NASB)

What is this all about?

 

Response: --- I used the last part of what Jafar Moh quoted from his google search.

Quote: While the added ending offers no new information, nor does it contradict previously revealed events and/or doctrine, both the external and internal evidence make it quite certain that Mark did not write it. In reality, ending his Gospel in verse 8 with the description of the amazement of the women at the tomb is entirely consistent with the rest of the narrative. Amazement at the Lord Jesus seems to be a theme with Mark. "They were amazed at his teaching" (Mark 1:22); "They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves" (Mark 1:27); "He healed the paralytic, and they were all amazed and were glorifying God saying, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this’"

--- Yes, in studying this, I read that Mark made 2 'originals' that would have been copied many times so they may show up in different manuscripts. --- However the last verse 8 is innacurate which I will explain later.

 

Quote: (Some, or even one, of the early scribes, however, apparently missed the thematic evidence and felt the need to add a more conventional ending.)

--- Yes, --- the short answer is that it was Peter, who wrote the last verses. --- I will give the longer answer later.

 

However, there are a few places where a footnote says that such a verse, or verses, are not in some Manuscripts, --- but they include them to show you what they are, --- do they not?

This is what the footnote says in The New King James:

Mark 16:20 Verses 9–20 are bracketed in NU-Text as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them.

The NIV has this statement, "[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.] --- Then they include them.

The ASV has about the same footnote, --- and then included them.

The NASB has the same footnote, --- and included them.

 

The simple rule seems to be that a footnote is put there, --- and the verses are included, to say that they are both Scripture. --- So there is not a mistake, or distortion, but they both come from Manuscripts.

--- So if the reader doesn't want to read the extra verses, they don't have to.

 

(More on this later.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

@LeftCoastMom

Some help and clarification with Mark 16:9-20? What do the Church Fathers  and scholars say about this? 

Well, I am late to this party, but looks like others have put up quite a bit of info.

as shown, some Church Elders quoted from the longer ending of Mark, others did not...and a couple seemed not to be familiar with it. The theories of why this is you have probably read already. Because the early churches accepted it ( and they did NOT accept plenty of the writings floating around out there) ,it was determined to be canon pretty early on. Since the gospel attests to the Resurrection either way, it doesn't seem to be bothering too many scholars.  Again, seems to me that Christians don't engage their scriptures the same way Muslims do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Well, I am late to this party, but looks like others have put up quite a bit of info.

as shown, some Church Elders quoted from the longer ending of Mark, others did not...and a couple seemed not to be familiar with it. The theories of why this is you have probably read already. Because the early churches accepted it ( and they did NOT accept plenty of the writings floating around out there) ,it was determined to be canon pretty early on. Since the gospel attests to the Resurrection either way, it doesn't seem to be bothering too many scholars.  Again, seems to me that Christians don't engage their scriptures the same way Muslims do.

I would be satisfied but there is a lingering question. There were several books floating around and the Church Elders decided which ones become part of the Bible and which one dont. What was the criteria?

If the criteria was select these books because they are correct, perhaps I will be satisfied.

However if the criteria was these books state what we already believe, let's select them and destroy the rest. This is a big-time problem.It's like pinning a dog to a tail rather than the other way around.

From what I have read, it's the latter.

(Said same thing on the Dog topic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish we had a time machine to watch this process. There is no way to know for certain. But here is what scholars think happened based on writings, councils, etc,

Don't know if these would seem " correct " to you, but the Elders seemed to have based their decisions on Many things beginning with claimed Apostolic authorship ( but just because something had an Apostle's name attached to it doesn't mean it was from that person. Some were considered too late or too weird.)  So, it had to be from the early time period and be internally consistent.

There was also the issue of consistent use in the churches throughout the Christian population. This was the communal wisdom of the Christian population.. It seemed there was a set of books read in the services well before the canon was being set that were considered authoritative. ( Note: the Church did not set out to destroy other books particularly, or we would not have  many of them survive, and some of the works considered perhaps late but non-heretical were probably read in the services, just not given the same weight as Scripture, while others were just eventually banned from use.)

The books conformed to Christian theology.

If major  developing Christian centers , like Rome or Antioch, accepted them, that was taken into consideration.

There were probably other criteria, but those come to mind.

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

I would be satisfied but there is a lingering question. There were several books floating around and the Church Elders decided which ones become part of the Bible and which one dont. What was the criteria?

If the criteria was select these books because they are correct, perhaps I will be satisfied.

However if the criteria was these books state what we already believe, let's select them and destroy the rest. This is a big-time problem.It's like pinning a dog to a tail rather than the other way around.

From what I have read, it's the latter.

(Said same thing on the Dog topic)

The Books that qualified into the New Testament were all written around 50-100AD. Pauls letters being the oldest. The Canon was officially decided in the 4th century. The 4 Gospels had already since the beginning of the second century (and maybe even earlier) been the pillar of Christian faith. Other books were under evaluation being divinely inspired or not. This and that they had been known by the earliest christians was the criteria. Didache was rejected. Revelation, the last book in NT, caused much discussion, and almost did not make it into the Canon.

 

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, andres said:

The Books that qualified into the New Testament were all written around 50-100AD. Pauls letters being the oldest. The Canon was officially decided in the 4th century. The 4 Gospels had already since the beginning of the second century (and maybe even earlier) been the pillar of Christian faith. Other books were under evaluation being divinely inspired or not. This and that they had been known by the earliest christians was the criteria. Didache was rejected. Revelation, the last book in NT, caused much discussion, and almost did not make it into the Canon.

What was the criteria for the selection of books. To a layman such as me, it looks like the people who believed in Paul won out and selected the books that were in line with Paul's teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shiaman14,

 

I wanted to get back to the subject of Mark 16.

--- I don't usually mention any weaknesses in the people that are either written about, or, who did the writing of books in the NT.

I would like you to neutralize your thinking for a little and understand that young people often have a besetting problem with fear.

Mark grew up in a large home that was often used for prayer meetings and had visits by the Apostles. It was a meeting place for Christians, so it could be in danger of interference by the Roman or Jewish authorities. --- Mark naturally knew the Apostles and Jesus, and he often travelled with them, and there is evidence that he was with them on the evening when the mob came to arrest Jesus. Mark may have been about 17 as he is called a young man in Mark 14:

48 Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me?

49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled."

50 Then they all forsook Him and fled.

51 Now a certain young man followed Him, having a linen cloth thrown around his naked body. And the men (from the mob) laid hold of him,

52 and he left the linen cloth and fled from them naked.

 

Since Mark was the only one to record this incident, they concluded it was Mark, himself. --- 'And he fled naked.' --- He is not mentioned as being any where at the trial, the crucifixion, the resurrection, or in the meetings that followed in the Acts of the Apostles. He stayed completely out of sight.

 

The statement in verse 50 is not quite accurate because the others maybe faded into the darkness, but they didn't flee. --- Mark wouldn't know that because he was gone. --- However, it says in the next verses:

53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes.

54 But Peter followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest

--- It gives more on the story in John 18:

15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple (John). Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.

16 But Peter stood at the door outside. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought Peter into the courtyard.

--- Since Peter had gone into the courtyard, and John had gone right into the trial with Jesus, John was able to record all that happened. The other Aposles would no doubt have followed Peter and would be outside of the fence.

 

Mark's cousin, Barnabas, invited him to go on a missionary trip with himself and Paul. --- They began in Acts 12:

25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their ministry, and they also took with them John whose surname was Mark.

13:4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

5 And when they arrived in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. They also had John Mark as their assistant.

--- They ran into some evil opposition with a sorcerer, and:

13 Now when Paul and his party set sail from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John Mark, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem.

 

It was some time later that Peter took Mark with him to Rome as his assistant. --- In the 50's and 60's, Greek became the language of commerce, and Mark, as a young man, might have been more fluent in Greek than Peter, so he began to write the Gospel account in Greek using input from Peter. --- Some have said it could have been called 'The Gospel of Peter.'

Mark had not been anywhere around during the time that Jesus was in the tomb and was predicted to rise again. --- He was no doubt told about it all, and recorded it from his perspective, but not getting it quite right.

 

--- To return to a former quote:

In reality, ending his Gospel in verse 8 with the description of the amazement of the women at the tomb is entirely consistent with the rest of the narrative. Amazement at the Lord Jesus seems to be a theme with Mark. "They were amazed at his teaching" Mark 1:22); "They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves" (Mark 1:27); "He healed the paralytic, and they were all amazed and were glorifying God saying, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this.’" --- And the verses leading up to verse 8, say:

16:1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.

2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.

3 And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?"

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large.

5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.

6 But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him.

7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you."

8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

 

The Gospel writers didn't identify themselves by name because the focus was on Jesus Christ --- so they are known more by their actions.

--- It was said before that there were 2 Manuscripts written by Mark ending at verse 8, and they may have been copies a few times. --- However since Peter had given Mark much of the info, --- and because Peter was an eye witness, and Mark wasn't, --- it was important for Peter to correct it, and add the proper ending, because the story didn't end at the tomb.

 

Peter identifies himself quickly with miracles in saying of Mary Magdalene, "Out of whom He (Jesus) cast 7 devils." --- Later Peter added these verses which identify him with Jesus.

15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;

18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

 

The example of Jesus healing the multitudes is given in Matthew 4:

23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.

24 Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them.

25 Great multitudes followed Him—from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan.

 

And Jesus said to the Apostles, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also." John 14:12.

--- And this identifies the Apostles by the Spiritual gifts given to them, and especially to Peter, as it says in Acts 5:

12 And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch.

13 Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly.

14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women,

15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them.

16 Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

 

Just a final word from John 20:

1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

2 Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple (John), whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

3 Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb.

4 So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first.

5 And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in.

6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb;

8 Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed.

--- Sorry, a long story to show these discrepancies with Mark, --- but each man had a personality with their strengths and weaknesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 10:51 PM, shiaman14 said:

What was the criteria for the selection of books. To a layman such as me, it looks like the people who believed in Paul won out and selected the books that were in line with Paul's teachings.

As I wrote in my last post (the one you quoted) the criteria was that the gospels shoult be as close in time as possible to Jesus and match the traditional teaching. As time goes by, myths about Jesus arose, so this criteria was crutial. The 4 Gospels in the NT are the only Gospels from the first century, and the oldest Church fathers often refer to them. 

As for Paul, of course he had influence on Christian theology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 10:51 PM, shiaman14 said:

What was the criteria for the selection of books. To a layman such as me, it looks like the people who believed in Paul won out and selected the books that were in line with Paul's teachings.

And one more remark. Paul died 64-65AD The limits for Mark Gospel composition is 65-80AD. Most likely 70-75AD. So Paul never read Mark or any of the other Gospels. Furthermore he was not the only personality having influenced Christian theology. Like in all other religions there was not and still is not totally theological consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, placid said:

Hi Shiaman14,

 

I wanted to get back to the subject of Mark 16.

--- I don't usually mention any weaknesses in the people that are either written about, or, who did the writing of books in the NT.

I would like you to neutralize your thinking for a little and understand that young people often have a besetting problem with fear.

Mark grew up in a large home that was often used for prayer meetings and had visits by the Apostles. It was a meeting place for Christians, so it could be in danger of interference by the Roman or Jewish authorities. --- Mark naturally knew the Apostles and Jesus, and he often travelled with them, and there is evidence that he was with them on the evening when the mob came to arrest Jesus. Mark may have been about 17 as he is called a young man in Mark 14:

48 Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me?

49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled."

50 Then they all forsook Him and fled.

51 Now a certain young man followed Him, having a linen cloth thrown around his naked body. And the men (from the mob) laid hold of him,

52 and he left the linen cloth and fled from them naked.

 

Since Mark was the only one to record this incident, they concluded it was Mark, himself. --- 'And he fled naked.' --- He is not mentioned as being any where at the trial, the crucifixion, the resurrection, or in the meetings that followed in the Acts of the Apostles. He stayed completely out of sight.

 

The statement in verse 50 is not quite accurate because the others maybe faded into the darkness, but they didn't flee. --- Mark wouldn't know that because he was gone. --- However, it says in the next verses:

53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes.

54 But Peter followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest

--- It gives more on the story in John 18:

15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple (John). Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.

16 But Peter stood at the door outside. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought Peter into the courtyard.

--- Since Peter had gone into the courtyard, and John had gone right into the trial with Jesus, John was able to record all that happened. The other Aposles would no doubt have followed Peter and would be outside of the fence.

 

Mark's cousin, Barnabas, invited him to go on a missionary trip with himself and Paul. --- They began in Acts 12:

25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their ministry, and they also took with them John whose surname was Mark.

13:4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

5 And when they arrived in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. They also had John Mark as their assistant.

--- They ran into some evil opposition with a sorcerer, and:

13 Now when Paul and his party set sail from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John Mark, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem.

 

It was some time later that Peter took Mark with him to Rome as his assistant. --- In the 50's and 60's, Greek became the language of commerce, and Mark, as a young man, might have been more fluent in Greek than Peter, so he began to write the Gospel account in Greek using input from Peter. --- Some have said it could have been called 'The Gospel of Peter.'

Mark had not been anywhere around during the time that Jesus was in the tomb and was predicted to rise again. --- He was no doubt told about it all, and recorded it from his perspective, but not getting it quite right.

 

--- To return to a former quote:

In reality, ending his Gospel in verse 8 with the description of the amazement of the women at the tomb is entirely consistent with the rest of the narrative. Amazement at the Lord Jesus seems to be a theme with Mark. "They were amazed at his teaching" Mark 1:22); "They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves" (Mark 1:27); "He healed the paralytic, and they were all amazed and were glorifying God saying, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this.’" --- And the verses leading up to verse 8, say:

16:1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.

2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.

3 And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?"

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large.

5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.

6 But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him.

7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you."

8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

 

The Gospel writers didn't identify themselves by name because the focus was on Jesus Christ --- so they are known more by their actions.

--- It was said before that there were 2 Manuscripts written by Mark ending at verse 8, and they may have been copies a few times. --- However since Peter had given Mark much of the info, --- and because Peter was an eye witness, and Mark wasn't, --- it was important for Peter to correct it, and add the proper ending, because the story didn't end at the tomb.

 

Peter identifies himself quickly with miracles in saying of Mary Magdalene, "Out of whom He (Jesus) cast 7 devils." --- Later Peter added these verses which identify him with Jesus.

15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;

18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

 

The example of Jesus healing the multitudes is given in Matthew 4:

23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.

24 Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them.

25 Great multitudes followed Him—from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan.

 

And Jesus said to the Apostles, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also." John 14:12.

--- And this identifies the Apostles by the Spiritual gifts given to them, and especially to Peter, as it says in Acts 5:

12 And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch.

13 Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly.

14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women,

15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them.

16 Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

 

Just a final word from John 20:

1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

2 Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple (John), whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

3 Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb.

4 So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first.

5 And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in.

6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb;

8 Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed.

--- Sorry, a long story to show these discrepancies with Mark, --- but each man had a personality with their strengths and weaknesses.

I am not really sure how much of the above pertains to Mark 16:9-20. You talk about the weakness of the Gospel writers but I already know that :). Although, their weakness should have been covered up if they were inspired by God.

7 hours ago, andres said:

As I wrote in my last post (the one you quoted) the criteria was that the gospels shoult be as close in time as possible to Jesus and match the traditional teaching. As time goes by, myths about Jesus arose, so this criteria was crutial. The 4 Gospels in the NT are the only Gospels from the first century, and the oldest Church fathers often refer to them. 

As for Paul, of course he had influence on Christian theology. 

But what if traditional teachings changed between 33AD and when the Bible was compiled. We already know that Moses went on the Mount for 40 days and people started worshipping a golden calf-head so what if traditional teachings changed between 33 - 100 AD?

The 4 Gospels are the only ones in the Bible but that does not mean they were the only ones in existence in the first century. 

4 hours ago, andres said:

And one more remark. Paul died 64-65AD The limits for Mark Gospel composition is 65-80AD. Most likely 70-75AD. So Paul never read Mark or any of the other Gospels. Furthermore he was not the only personality having influenced Christian theology. Like in all other religions there was not and still is not totally theological consensus.

Apart from the Gospel writers, do we know the authors of the rest of the books in the NT? Isn't it predominately Paul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

But what if traditional teachings changed between 33AD and when the Bible was compiled. We already know that Moses went on the Mount for 40 days and people started worshipping a golden calf-head so what if traditional teachings changed between 33 - 100 AD?

The 4 Gospels are the only ones in the Bible but that does not mean they were the only ones in existence in the first century. 

The early Church was poorly organised and had not the power to forbid others to write Gospels. All they could do was to argue against heretic documents. Which they did, and this is why we know about gospels now disapeared. But we have no knowledge of other Gospels from the first century than the 4 in the Bible. (Maybe Thomas Gospel, but it is difficult to date. Scholars say 50-150AD). Theology may change slowly over time, but written word still stays the same. The 4 gospels were copied and used in the early church, and as soon they were known, corruption would become impossible. Copying errors could mean that the end of Mark in a copy had been lost and therefore the copies of this copy would lack the end. That someone later added the verses is also possible and so copies of this would contain the added ending. It must have happened very early and there is no way we can find out, unless new documents are found.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Apart from the Gospel writers, do we know the authors of the rest of the books in the NT? Isn't it predominately Paul?

Pauls letters are the earliest Christian writings we have got. Some letters traditionally ascribed to him, today are regarded written by other anonymous Christians. The 4 Gospels are also by anonymous writers. But since they wrote 65-100AD they would be Christians of the second generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

The early Church was poorly organised and had not the power to forbid others to write Gospels. All they could do was to argue against heretic documents. Which they did, and this is why we know about gospels now disapeared. But we have no knowledge of other Gospels from the first century than the 4 in the Bible. (Maybe Thomas Gospel, but it is difficult to date. Scholars say 50-150AD). Theology may change slowly over time, but written word still stays the same. The 4 gospels were copied and used in the early church, and as soon they were known, corruption would become impossible. Copying errors could mean that the end of Mark in a copy had been lost and therefore the copies of this copy would lack the end. That someone later added the verses is also possible and so copies of this would contain the added ending. It must have happened very early and there is no way we can find out, unless new documents are found.

 

So let's say for argument's sake the earliest Christians including the disciples believed in Jesus as a Prophet and not the Son of God. And then the Son of God doctrine took hold between 50-100AD. Now when selecting the Gospels, the earliest Christian gospels that mentioned Jesus as a Prophet would be considered heretical, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

So let's say for argument's sake the earliest Christians including the disciples believed in Jesus as a Prophet and not the Son of God. And then the Son of God doctrine took hold between 50-100AD. Now when selecting the Gospels, the earliest Christian gospels that mentioned Jesus as a Prophet would be considered heretical, correct?

Why? Jesus was called many names, and he put forward many prophesies so there is nothing wrong in calling him a prophet. But we believe he is divine. This is where we differ from Islam. 

By calling Jesus "son of God" the disciples did not believe that God had slept with Mary. Actually we do not even know if they had heard about the Virgin birth.

 

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

Why? Jesus was called many names, and he put forward many prophesies so there is nothing wrong in calling him a prophet. But we believe he is divine. This is where we differ from Islam. 

By calling Jesus "son of God" the disciples did not believe that God had slept with Mary. Actually we do not even know if they had heard about the Virgin birth.

 

ok, so let's get more hypothetical.  Let's say for argument's sake the earliest Christians including the disciples believed in Jesus as a X and not Y. And then the Y doctrine took hold between 50-100AD. Now when selecting the Gospels, the earliest Christian gospels that mentioned Jesus as X would be considered heretical, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • actually, one such effort done is: (1) Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Thahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim. http://ammanmessage.com/the-three-points-of-the-amman-message-v-1/ but extreme wahhabis reject this. let's not be extremists like them. i remember, during 2003 invasion of iraq, thousands of gi joes died. today, the modern jihadists are their foot soldiers. how to prevent this (being foot soldiers for US or some other entities) from repeating itself in future? 1. spread the fact that shiism is not majoosi/jewish creation. 2. while not belittling others, shiism has strong evidence to be the islam  propagated by the Prophet, preserved through His Ahu Bayt as. 3. let's race towards good deeds - you don't have time to throw stones during a 100m dash, do you?
    • Looking at anyone who is not your partner in marriage - with lust - is haram.
    • Al-Salamu Alaykum This is what you should do if you found a lost item: Question: Suppose that Muslim, residing in a non-Muslim country finds a suitcase (full of clothes) with or without the owner’s nametag on it. What should he do with it? Answer: A suitcase of personal belongings normally has the nametag through which the owner can be contacted. If he knows that it belongs to a Muslim or a non-Muslim whose property is sacrosanct (or even if there is a likelihood —a considerable likelihood— [that it belongs to a non-Muslim whose property is sacrosanct]), it is necessary for him to announce it for one whole year that he has found that item [so that the owner can come forward and claim it]. If he cannot find the owner [even after the lapse of one year], he should, based on obligatory precaution, give it in charity. However, if he knows that it belongs to a non-Muslim, it is permissible for him to keep it provided that he is not legally bound to announce what he finds in that country or to hand it over to the authorities, etc. (1) In the latter case, he is not allowed to take possession of it; rather it is compulsory on him to act in accordance with the legal undertaking. Question: If I find an item in a European country without any distinctive sign on it [identifying the owner], is it permissible for me to keep it? Answer: If it has no distinctive sign by which one can contact the owner, it is permissible for you to keep it except in the case [of the legal undertaking] mentioned earlier. Source:  http://www.sistani.org/english/book/46/2057/
    • Provided they're bought up correctly with love and teachings of ahlulbayt! If you have a great support system then its definitely possible. 
    • Guest Mother of 3
      Is it permissible to have an abortion at 3weeks old if the mother has 3 children aged 11years, 10years  & 18 months, she struggles with them aged 42 and has no family support? The older children are from a previous marriage but the ex husband does not support in any way or financially. Her husband works long hours and comes home 10pm most days of the week. She works 16 hours a week and does the tuition, swimming, and school runs. She feels tired and drained most days and feels she cannot cope if she has another child. She feels quite alone and depressed as she would never consider abortion but due to her circumstances feels this will put more pressure on her marriage. Her husband said he would support her if she aborts the pregnancy. She feels she is going through depression and this pregnancy will make it harder for her and in turn she will not be able to cope.
×