Disputed Ending of Mark 16.

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

rstrats
Scholar
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:37 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Disputed Ending of Mark 16.

Post #1

Post by rstrats »

A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.


I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: “Quote a published author who has done that.� - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #11

Post by McCulloch »

rstrats wrote: re: “Now the writers of the New Testament repeatedly said that the resurrection would be on the third day...so if the resurrection happened on the seventh day, it would have been too early.�

That would be true if the crucifixion occurred on the fifth day but not if it took place on the fourth day. However, a fifth day crucifixion is not a slam dunk. Other than Mark 16:9, there is no scripture that absolutely, positively, unequivocally, and incontrovertibly precludes a fourth day crucifixion.
The normal meaning of the word sabbath is the weekly sabbath that takes place on the seventh day of each week (Saturday). Thus, the majority Christian opinion is that since it is written that Jesus died just before the sabbath, he died on the sixth day of the week (Friday). There has been numerous attempts to make a case for the crucifixion on the fifth day of the week (Thursday) or the fourth day (Wednesday), usually in attempts to reconcile the statement made by Jesus recorded in Matthew 12:40, "the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. " This usually involves finding the few references to sabbath days in the Hebrew scriptures that were not on the seventh day and speculating that one of these must have fallen just before the seventh day, on that fateful week. I find such arguments unconvincing. If it were the case, then one would expect that Luke, who was writing to a gentile audience, should have included this little detail for the benefit of those gentiles who may not have known this somewhat obscure fact of the Jewish calendar.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #12

Post by jedicri »

rstrats wrote:jeicri,

re: “It is a fact that special honor is shown to Sunday throughout the New Testament.�

Nowhere does scripture say that any specialness is to be attributed to the first day of the week. It is man’s invention to do so.
No where in Scripture does it say that everything taught must be found therein, rather, as St.Paul teaches:
2 Thessalonians 2:14
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."

re: “ Luke records that Sunday was observed by the Christian community from the very beginning...�

Actually, as far as the Bible is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first. The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a celebration, worship service or day of rest. The Acts reference has them together because Paul happened to be in town and he wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again. The breaking of bread mentioned (even if it were referring to the Lord’s Supper) had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first (day) because Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day.
The first Mass (breaking of the bread), and thereafter on the first day of the week, was celebrated after Pentacost, ie. the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles.

As for verse Acts 2: 46: Although by the death of our Saviour, the ceremonies and sacrifices were abrogated, and the new alliance had succeeded to the old, still it was not in the design of God, that the faithful should separate themselves from the rest of the Jews, or entirely give up the observances of the law. They continued to observe them, as long as the utility of the Church required it, but they observed them not as Jews. Thus they avoided giving scandal to the weak, and driving them from submitting to the doctrines of the Church. They disposed them insensibly to a more pure and spiritual worship. (St. Chrysostom, in Act. hom. vii.) --- This was burying the synagogue with honour.

rstrats
Scholar
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:37 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Post #13

Post by rstrats »

jedicri,

re: “The first Mass (breaking of the bread), and thereafter on the first day of the week, was celebrated after Pentacost...�

Except for Acts 20:7, there is never again a mention of first day meetings. And it is only speculation that the “breaking of bread� is referring to the Lord’s Supper and not simply to a common meal. But as mentioned previously, even if it were referring to the Lord’s Supper, Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day. So that would remove any specialness of the first day with regard to the “breaking of bread�.


Since it’s been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of an author.

User avatar
pax
Guru
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:10 am
Location: Gravenhurst Ontario Canada

Post #14

Post by pax »

I don't want to de-rail this topic, but there is a big 500 pound gorilla in the room that no one is addressing.

The Gospel of Mark has 4 distinct endings, all of them having the same textual-critic authority. There is no fornesic way to determine which ending is the original ending, or if endings were added or subtracted.

Anyone who disputes the extended ending of Mark can do so on the appeal that it was added, and anyone who accepts the extended ending of Mark can do so on the appeal that the truncated versions were subtractions.

So, the big 500 pound gorilla that everybody is ignoring here is: Why do all the Bibles in existence carry the extended ending of Mark?

User avatar
pax
Guru
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:10 am
Location: Gravenhurst Ontario Canada

Post #15

Post by pax »

McCulloch wrote:
rstrats wrote: re: “Now the writers of the New Testament repeatedly said that the resurrection would be on the third day...so if the resurrection happened on the seventh day, it would have been too early.�

That would be true if the crucifixion occurred on the fifth day but not if it took place on the fourth day. However, a fifth day crucifixion is not a slam dunk. Other than Mark 16:9, there is no scripture that absolutely, positively, unequivocally, and incontrovertibly precludes a fourth day crucifixion.
The normal meaning of the word sabbath is the weekly sabbath that takes place on the seventh day of each week (Saturday). Thus, the majority Christian opinion is that since it is written that Jesus died just before the sabbath, he died on the sixth day of the week (Friday). There has been numerous attempts to make a case for the crucifixion on the fifth day of the week (Thursday) or the fourth day (Wednesday), usually in attempts to reconcile the statement made by Jesus recorded in Matthew 12:40, "the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. " This usually involves finding the few references to sabbath days in the Hebrew scriptures that were not on the seventh day and speculating that one of these must have fallen just before the seventh day, on that fateful week. I find such arguments unconvincing. If it were the case, then one would expect that Luke, who was writing to a gentile audience, should have included this little detail for the benefit of those gentiles who may not have known this somewhat obscure fact of the Jewish calendar.
Jesus distinctly says that just as Jonah was 3 days and nights in the belly of the whale, so He would be 3 days and nights in the belly of the earth.

The real answer, then, as to the time Jesus was in the belly of the earth, is to understand just exactly how Jonah was 3 days and nights in the belly of the whale.

Days were counted from sundown to sundown. Prior to sundown on Friday is one day. Sundown Friday to sundown Saturday is one day. Sundown Saturday to Sunday morning is one day. There are also 3 periods of darnkness -- nights -- in there as well.

Ergo, there is no need to go looking elsewhere for such a simple answer.

rstrats
Scholar
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:37 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Post #16

Post by rstrats »

pax,

re: “There are also 3 periods of darnkness -- nights -- in there as well. “


How do you get three night times that the Messiah was in the tomb with a sixth day afternoon burial?

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #17

Post by McCulloch »

pax wrote: So, the big 500 pound gorilla that everybody is ignoring here is: Why do all the Bibles in existence carry the extended ending of Mark?
Pax, to me there is another, perhaps larger gorilla in the room. All of the different endings of Mark have an ancient pedigree. Thus, I would conclude that the copyists from that period did not consider gMark to have been verbally Holy Spirit Inspired Scripture. If they had, they would not have felt at liberty to add, delete or modify the text. The whole idea, central to Evangelical Christianity, that the New Testament Scriptures were literally inspired of God, would have been an idea completely strange to the generation of the actual writers and early copyists.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
pax
Guru
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:10 am
Location: Gravenhurst Ontario Canada

Post #18

Post by pax »

McCulloch wrote:
pax wrote: So, the big 500 pound gorilla that everybody is ignoring here is: Why do all the Bibles in existence carry the extended ending of Mark?
Pax, to me there is another, perhaps larger gorilla in the room. All of the different endings of Mark have an ancient pedigree. Thus, I would conclude that the copyists from that period did not consider gMark to have been verbally Holy Spirit Inspired Scripture. If they had, they would not have felt at liberty to add, delete or modify the text. The whole idea, central to Evangelical Christianity, that the New Testament Scriptures were literally inspired of God, would have been an idea completely strange to the generation of the actual writers and early copyists.
And I see no reason to dispute your point. God reveals things in His own good time. The only caveat I would insist upon is that once the NT Scriptures were declared to be the inspired work of the Holy Spirit, then that dogma was written in stone.

In the early centuries of Christianity the big problem was all the bogus gospels, epistles and apocalypses going around. The whole intention behind declaring a Canon of Scripture was to regulate which texts were being read in the churches during the Liturgy of the Word.

rstrats
Scholar
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:37 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Post #19

Post by rstrats »

Since it has been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of an author.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #20

Post by bluethread »

They also wouldhave been told to take a collection when they were together on the first day of the week, because they would have been gathered together for Havdalah, the ending of Shabbat and taking a collection of roman coins on Shabbat would not be acceptable.

Post Reply