Mark 16:9

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Previous Verse < Mark 16 > Next Verse

Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. (ASV)


DANGER - SON OF MEN WORKING (WORK IN PROGRESS)

JW: Another potential error with similarities to the Placement of "Matthew" claimed error, is the Original Ending of "Mark". Keep in mind that my definition of the Christian Bible is:

The majority English reading.

First, let's do a survey of English Bibles:

New International Version (NIV) ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9[[a]Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to (A)Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. Footnotes: Mark 16:9 Later mss add vv 9-20

The Message (MSG) 9[After rising from the dead, Jesus appeared early on Sunday morning to Mary Magdalene, whom he had delivered from seven demons.

Amplified Bible (AMP) 9[a]Now Jesus, having risen [[b]from death] early on the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had driven out seven demons. Footnotes: Mark 16:9 Some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain verses 9-20.

New Living Translation (NLT) 9It was early on Sunday morning when Jesus rose from the dead, and the first person who saw him was Mary Magdalene, the woman from whom he had cast out seven demons.

King James Version (KJV)

9Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

English Standard Version (ESV) [Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20.] Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene

9[a] [[Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.

Contemporary English Version (CEV) ONE OLD ENDING TO MARK'S GOSPEL [a] Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene (Matthew 28.9,10; John 20.11-18)

9Very early on the first day of the week, after Jesus had risen to life, he appeared to Mary Magdalene. Earlier he had forced seven demons out of her. ANOTHER OLD ENDING TO MARK'S GOSPEL [b]

9 -10The women quickly told Peter and his friends what had happened. Later, Jesus sent the disciples to the east and to the west with his sacred and everlasting message of how people can be saved forever. Footnotes: Mark 16:9 One Old Ending to Mark's Gospel: Verses 9-20 are not in some manuscripts. Mark 16:9 Another Old Ending to Mark's Gospel: Some manuscripts and early translations have both this shorter ending and the longer one (verses 9-20).

New King James Version (NKJV) Mary Magdalene Sees the Risen Lord 9 Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons.

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

9Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils.

American Standard Version (ASV)

9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

9And he, having risen in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, did appear first to Mary the Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons;

Darby Translation (DARBY)

9Now when he had risen very early, the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary of Magdala, out of whom he had cast seven demons.

New Life Version (NLV) The Followers Of Jesus Do Not Believe He Was Raised From The Dead (Luke 24:13-43; John 20:24-29)

9(*It was early on the first day of the week when Jesus was raised from the dead. Mary Magdalene saw Him first. He had put seven demons out of her.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) 9 Early (A) on the first day of the week, (B) after He had risen, (C) He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, (D) out of whom He had driven seven demons. (E)

Mark 16:9 New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

9Jesus rose from the dead early on the first day of the week. He appeared first to Mary Magdalene. He had driven seven demons out of her.

Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)

9 And Jesus rose early the first day of the week, and appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven devils [of whom he had cast out seven devils].

Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)

9Jesus rose early on the first day of the week. He showed himself first to Mary Magdalene. Jesus had driven seven bad spirits out of her.

New International Version - UK (NIVUK) 9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.


JW: A majority of the above simply present the Long Ending without identifying any issue of Originality. I assert that the Evidence indicates that the Long Ending is not original and therefore the majority English reading is in Error by presenting a non-original Ending as presumably original.

In order to try and Prove that the Long Ending is not original I'll first present a summary of the related Patristic evidence:

1) Late 1st Century, General Witness, Witness Quality Low, Short Ending - no quotes, Evidence Quality - Low

2) Early 2nd, General, Witness - Low, Short - no quotes, Evidence Low

3) Early 2nd, Papias, Father, Witness - Low, Short - no knowledge, Evidence Low

4) Early 2nd, Anonymous, Preaching of Peter, Witness - Low, Short - a few similarities, Evidence - Low

5) Late 2nd, Justin, Apologist, Witness - Medium, Mixed, Evidence - Low

6) Late 2nd, Clement-A, Major author, Witness - Low, Short - no knowledge, Evidence - Low

7) Late 2nd, Tatian, Author of Dia., Witness - Medium, Long - good paraphrase, Evidence - Medium

8) Late 2nd, Irenaeus, Advocate, Witness - Low, Long - Explicit, Evidence - Medium

9) Early 3rd, Origen, Manuscript expert, Witness - High, Short - no knowledge, Evidence - Medium

10) Early 3rd, Tertullian, Major author, Witness - Medium, Short - only weak reference, Evidence - Medium

11) Early 3rd, Hippolytus?, Father, Witness - Low, Long - good paraphrase, Evidence - Medium

12) Early 3rd, Vincentius, Father, Witness - Low, Short - no knowledge, Evidence - Medium

13) Early 4th, Eusebius, Manuscript expert, Historian, Witness - High, Short - Explicit based on textual variants, Evidence - High

14) Early 4th, Aphraates, Father, Witness - Low, Long - clear paraphrase, Evidence - Medium.

15) Late 4th, Ambrose, Father, Witness - Low, Long - clear paraphrase, Evidence - Medium

16) Early 5th, Augustine, Father Apologist, Witness - Medium, Long - Explicit ID, Evidence - Medium

17) Early 5th, Jerome, Manuscript and Translation expert, Witness - High, Short - Explicit based on textual variants, Evidence - High

18) Early 5th, Hesychius, Father, Witness - Low, Short - Implication from textual question, Evidence - Medium

19) Late 5th, Victor - A, Father, Witness - Low, Long - Explicit based on textual variants, Evidence - High

20) Early 6th, Severus, Father, Witness - Low, Short - Explicit based on textual variants, Evidence - High


Let's summarize the evidence now just by one category at a time:

1) Date:

In general Earlier supports Short while Later supports Long. It would appear that some version of The Long Ending was known by at least the middle of the second century.

2) Witness quality:

In general the Better quality witnesses, such as Origen, Eusebius and Jerome (due to being manuscript, language and history experts), support the Short.

3) Testimony quality:

In general the Better testimony quality, due to Identification of the Ending Issue, supports the Short.

4) Witness quantity:

Depends on the time period cutoff. From the above, most are Short. After the 6th century most Fathers assume the Long is correct.

Patristic writing from the second half of the 1st century and Patristic writing from the first half of the second century generally don't show much detailed knowledge of the Four Gospels. But, as "Mark" was likely the first written and Christianity was significantly motivated to convert, a long ending of "Mark" would have been the best evidence that Christianity had for the supposed resurrection at the time and therefore good motivation for use if it existed. One possible reason Fathers did not give specifics of a post resurrection story for this time period is that it didn't yet exist or at least the most popular Gospel, "Mark", didn't have it.

Conclusion based on the Patristic Evidence:

The Timing, Witness quality, and quality of Testimony indicates that the Short Ending was Likely Original.

Let me add some comments here for my insufficiently Skeptical friends here which also applies to the Placement of "Matthew". Error is indifferent to intention and includes intentional and unintentional (just see the sacrificial system in the Jewish Bible). Also, "Tradition" is not necessarily a defense against but can actually be an explanation for.

As my old friend Kushke used to say when we were single, "Looks are vastly underrated!". So too are Motivation and Opportunity as evidence for Error and neither requires bad intention to operate.

The Ending of "Mark" causes a serious credibility problem for Christianity as it was likely the best potential evidence for early Christianity and, as most extant manuscripts witness some Long Ending, testifies that Motive and Opportunity are potentially better evidence than manuscripts and that TransMission (like the placement of "Matthew") may be a more important issue than Authorship in evaluating the Christian witness. If it was Authored it may be in the Canon, if it was Selected, it is.


Joseph


I think it would be beneficial here to quote Metzger in Toto as sort of a starting point even though there are a number of inaccuracies in what Metzger wrote: (The related Logos CD with Metzger commentary costs about 30 pieces of Silver)

"16.9–20 The Ending(s) of Mark Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (? and B),1 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts,2 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913).3 Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16.8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document. (2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L ? 099 0112 al), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts,4 and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts,5 continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” All of these witnesses except itk also continue with verses 9–20. (3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X ? ? ? ? 099 0112 fª13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20 (??? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????????? ?? ????????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ????????). (4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: “And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’ — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.’” How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ? ???? ?????, ????????, ????????, ????????, ?????????) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (??????, ????, ????????). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14. The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9–20 are non-Markan (e. g. ???????, ??????, ???????, ???????????, ???????, ???? ?????, ?????????, ????????, ??????? are found nowhere else in Mark; and ????????? and ???? ???? ????? ??????????, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9–20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1–8 are now forgotten; the use of ??????? ?? and the position of ?????? are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1–8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1–8 and 9–20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century. The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine.6 Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark’s Gospel. Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9–20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9–20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with a few lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8.7 At the same time, however, out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9–20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.8" Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York


Joseph


Eusebius Letter to Marinus:

http://www.degruyter.de/journals/znw/2001/pdf/92_078.pdf

[I beseech the Almighty to grant me forgiveness for all errors here due to Conversion]

"I am now, skipping over the middle parts, proceeding next to the questions that are always being raised by everyone at the end of the same texts. [I do so] without much delay since the will of God spurs us on to this through your commands, Marinus, my most honored and most industrious son. You asked first, I. How is it that in Matthew the Savior, after having been raised, appears “late on the Sabbath”17 but in Mark “early on the first day of the week”?18 1. The solution to this might be twofold. For, on the one hand, the one who rejects the passage itself, [namely] the pericope which says this, might say that it does not appear in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. At any rate, the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, “Do not fear. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene”19 and the [words] that follow. In addition to these, it says,20 “And having heard [this] they fled, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.”21 For in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies. The things that appear next, seldom [and] in some but not in all [of the copies], may be spurious, especially since25 it implies26 a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists. This then [is what] someone might say to avoid and completely do away with27 a superfluous question. On the other hand, someone else, who dares to set aside nothing whatsoever of the things which appear, by whatever means,28 in the text of the Gospels,29 says that the reading is double,30 as also in many other [cases], and [that] each of the two [readings] pistoi&v kai+ eu$labe*sin e$gkri*nesqai. must be accepted in that [they both] are approved in the opinion of the faithful and pious, not this [reading] rather than that, or that [reading] rather than this. 2. And what is more, since it is granted that this part is true, it is appropriate to interpret the sense of the passage. If then we should determine the meaning of the expression, we would not find it35 [to be] contrary to the things spoken by Matthew, [that] “late on the Sabbath” the Savior was raised. For the [passage], “and having risen early on the first day of the week” according to Mark we will read with a pause: after the “and having risen” we will insert a comma. And we will separate the meaning of the [words] that are read afterward. Thus, on the one hand, we may read36 the [expression] “having risen” with reference to the [meaning37 found] in Matthew, “late on the Sabbath.” For that is when he was raised. On the other hand, we could [also] join38 what follows, which gives rise to39 a different meaning, with the [words] that are read afterward: for “early on the first day of the week he appeared to Mary Magdalene.” tou&to gou&n e$dh*lwse kai+ o< $Iwa*nnhv prwi¸ At any rate, John has also made this clear, kai+ au$to+v t|& mi{& tou& sabba*tou w# fqai au$- and has himself testified that “early on the to+n t|& Magdalhn|& marturh*sav‚ ou=twv first day of the week” [Christ] appeared to ou#n kai+ para+ t}& Ma*rk} prwi¸ e$fa*nh au$t|&‚ the Magdalene. In this manner, therefore, ou$ prwi¸ a$nasta+v, a$lla+ polu+ pro*teron also in Mark he appeared “early” to her. It is not [that] he “rose early” but much earlier, according to Matthew, “late on the Sabbath.” For, “having risen” at that time, he appeared to Mary, not at that time,41 but “early.” The consequence is that42 two points in time are presented in these [pericopes], for the one43 [is the time] of the resurrection, which was “late on the Sabbath.” The other [is the time] of the manifestation of the Savior, which was “early.” Mark wrote [about the later time] when he said that which must be read with a pause, “and having risen.” Then, after having inserted a comma, one must read what follows, “early on the first day of the week he appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.”


Joseph


Jerome Letter To Hedebia

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=140300&page=1&pp=25

[Roger Pearse] "Jerome says much the same in letter 120, Ad Hedibiam, ch.3: (PL text, with rough translation):

...

CHAP. 3. What is the reason that the Evangelists spoke about the resurrection and appearance of the Lord differently?

In these, you ask first why Matthew said that, “But when the evening of the Sabbath had begun to dawn, on the first day of the following week the Lord rose again”, and Mark relates that his resurrection happened in the morning, thus writing, “However when he rose again, on the first day of the week, in the morning Mary Magdalen arrived, from whom he had expelled seven demons: and she departing announced to those who were mourning and weeping with her. And these hearing that he was alive, and that she had seen him, did not believe in him”.

The solution of this question is two-fold; for either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, that is carried in few gospels, almost all the books of Greece not having this passage at the end, especially and since it seems to speak various and contrary things to the other evangelists; or this must be replied, that both speak truly: Matthew, when the Lord rose again on the evening of the Sabbath, Mark however, when Mary Magdalen saw him, that is, on the morning of the first day of the week.

For so it must be distinguished: for when he had risen again, and being for a short while restricted by the spirit, it must be supposed, on the first day of the week in the morning he appeared to Mary Magdalen, so he had risen again on the evening of the sabbath (according to Matthew), [but] he appeared to Mary Magdalen on the morning of the first day of the week (according to Mark).

Which indeed John the Evangelist also signifies, stating that he was seen on the morning of the second day."



Joseph



Con

Edit this section if you doubt error.

Neutral

Someone please track down the source used for the list of patristic witnesses. It needs to be cited.

External links

Personal tools