Mark 16:9

[rstrats]

Gerhard Ebersöhn,

re: “I have a library full!!â€Â


When you get some time I wonder if you might be so kind as to identify one of the authors in your collection and the title of the publication along with a quote from the pub regarding Mark 16:9 and first day observance.


re: “rstrats, do you believe Jesus was resurrected on the Sabbath (Seventh) Day?â€Â

I have no set belief with regard to the day of the resurrection. It could have been either the seventh day or the first day depending on when the crucifixion took place.

 

[Gerhard Ebersöhn]

rstrats:
"I have no set belief with regard to the day of the resurrection. It could have been either the seventh day or the first day depending on when the crucifixion took place."

GE:
"depending on when the crucifixion took place".
No text in Scriptures MENTIONS the resurrection AS it happened, whenever it happened. ONLY Mt28:1-4 describes the CIRCUMSTANCES that surrounded and accompanied the resurrection. The resurrection is UNDENIABLY implied in these text, taking into account the angel "EXPLAINED to the women" in verse 5, WHAT indeed had taken place when there was an earthquake and while the Marys set out to go and have a look at the grave, and the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and rolled the stone away and sat on it. NOWHERE else in the NT is there such a DIRECT explanation of the events which any believer will accept by faith accompanied Jesus' resurrection from the dead. There is absolutely NOTHING too complicated to understand and accept for the GREATEST TRUTH ever recorded. Just so unambigious is the time GIVEN: "IN THE SABBATH'S FULNESS OF MID-AFTERNOON BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK".

 

[Gerhard Ebersöhn]

rstrats:
"I sorry, but Matthew 28 does not say WHEN the resurrection took place."

GE:
No sir, Matthew 28:1-4 DOES say WHEN the resurrection took place. You are questioning the RESURRECTION, because the TIME is STATED there for even the unbeliever to see. It is only WHAT happened "THEN", as Paul says in Eph1:17f, "When God RAISED Christ from the dead and EXALTED Him to (His) Right Hand", that you question because it does not stand there written in so many words. Do you believe the Scriptures?

This is what you insinuate, that those who use Mk16:9 to show Jesus' resurrection, cannot do, because His Resurrection is not mentioned in that verse. Now who does not know that? One should rather ask: Who does not BELIEVE it? in order to answer your very fishy questions and doubts. No sir, even the Sanday-sacredness adherents at least BELIEVE Jesus in FACT, ROSE from the dead; they at least, are real Christians despite they misinterpret the text! Your cunningness is tangible!

I think, you are a New Reformationist

 

[Gerhard Ebersöhn]

But, to answer your vague question as to the time-relation between the day of the resurrection and the day of the crucifixion, there are a hundred reasons why there can be no doubt Jesus rose, and had to rise from the dead, on the Sabbath.

Here is one of them:

Luke tells the disciples who went to Emmaus late on Sunday afternoon, told Jesus, "Today is the third day SINCE these things happened". Now to which things did they refer? To the things they knew anything about - of no other things! And what was it they knew about? They tell us themselves: They mention Jesus' suffering and crucifixion. Simply count: Sunday, day 3 after or since the crucifixion; Saturday, day 2 since the crucifixion; Friday, day one since the crucifixion; THURSDAY, DAY OF THE CRUCIFIXION!

Therefore, Jesus must have been crucified on a Thursday --- against popular belief, as it is against popular belief He rose on a 'Saturday', "the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God". It is against popular belief ALTHOUGH this name of it already foretold God in Christ Jesus would on the Seventh Day His Sabbath Day, and in it, rest. "God from ALL His works, on the Seventh Day RESTED" --- a NT Word! What can God's 'Rest' be - and have been - but His Triumph of Lordship by having raised Christ from the dead?

 

[Gerhard Ebersöhn]

Now who can deny the FAITH that believes if God is "speaking", "through the Son", "in these last days" of ours --- in New Testament times, "Thus, concerning the Seventh Day: And God the Seventh Day RESTED from all His Works", that God is speaking from God's Work of Redemption first and foremost: In and Through the Son, ultimately, finally, axiomatically, Victoriously, Triumphantly, in and through the Son, Jesus Christ: IN AND THROUGH RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD!

 

[nadab]

Mark 16:9-20 appears in certain Bible manuscripts and versions of the fifth and sixth centuries C.E. But they do not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vatican MS. 1209 of the fourth century. Dr. B. F. Westcott, an authority on Bible manuscripts, said that “the verses . . . are no part of the original narrative but an appendage.†(An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, London, 1881, p. 338) Bible translator Jerome, writing in the year 406 or 407 C.E, said that “almost all the Greek codices [are] without this passage.†(The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, London, 1871, J. W. Burgon, p. 53) The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) says: “Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it [that is, verses 9-20].†(Vol. IX, p. 240)

In commenting on the long and short conclusions of the Gospel of Mark, Bible translator Edgar J. Goodspeed noted: “The Short Conclusion connects much better with Mark 16:8 than does the Long, but neither can be considered an original part of the Gospel of Mark.â€Ââ€â€The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament, 1944, p. 127.

Thus, Mark 16 ends with verse 8, with verses 9-20 and the short conclusion as being added at a later date. Supporting this testimony of the Greek manuscripts and versions are the church historian Eusebius (bishop of Caesarea in the third and fourth centuries). Eusebius wrote that the longer ending was not in the “accurate copies,†for “at this point [verse 8] the end of the Gospel according to Mark is determined in nearly all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark.â€Â

Bible scholars agree that the last twelve verses shown with the book of Mark, which speak about tongues and not being injured by snakes, were not written by Mark but were added by another. Samuel Tregelles, a noted nineteenth-century English Bible scholar, states: “Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses were nt written by St. Mark, or not found in the best copies.â€Â

(source of information - Watchtower Library)

 

[Gerhard Ebersöhn]

Alright; Eusebius might not have known of the 'longer endings's' existence; it doesn't prove: 1) it not somewhere else existed and was known and accepted by other Christians.

It doesn't prove 2) the longer ending is not genuine, or not 'Scripture'. That it is not, is a subjective opinion at best.

The 'reasons' from the content for why not, always are based on opinion and dogmatic prejudice, as if no other interpretation could be given than the usual fantastic ones - snake bites and that stuff.

But I want to give you a true Christian application of the 'snake bites', like no one without ulterior motive would oppose.

I'll come back with it - just want to go copy it.

I have before made notice, that nothing of the NT texts originated simultaneously; they are all from oldest to youngest -- we are only here and there able to tell which is which.

The fact Mk16f got preserved proves God's protecting hand over his genuine written Word.

 

[Gerhard Ebersöhn]

Like in the Gospel of Luke - according to Luke himself -, very little was written by himself - the Gospel is mainly a compilation made by luke of many unidentified sources -, so the Gospel of Mark contains as it seems everything Mark was not himself the eye-witness of. So why make an exception of the longer ending? Because it could not have been Mark himself who added it to his Gospel because it was added too late? So you see we are back to personal feelings, so that anyone could say, yes, indeed! But there's no proof for any such conclusions under the sun!

 

[Gerhard Ebersöhn]

Please, could the bosses of this Forum, increase the working size of the print? It's extremely difficult for people with eye sight like mine, please?

 

[Rick W]

Please, could the bosses of this Forum, increase the working size of the print? It's extremely difficult for people with eye sight like mine, please?

What browser are you using?
If you're using FireFox hold down the Ctrl key and use the scroll wheel to adjust the font size as you like.
This also works on the 64-bit version of Windows IE

 

[nadab]

Hello Gerhard,
Eusebius was aware of the of the longer ending to the book of Mark, saying that it was not in any of the "accurate copies" of early Bible manuscripts. One such manuscript may have been a palimpsest (erased manuscript and then written over) found in 1892 at the St. Catherine Monastery at the base of Mount Sinai. It is a a late second or early third century copy of the four Gospels into Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, which was a language commonly spoken in Jesus' day.

In this manuscript, Mark 16:8 is the end of this book, with then a little row of circles followed by a little space and the beginning of Luke. Thus, this ancient manuscript provides evidence that Mark 16 ended with verse 8, and that verses 9-20 are not part of the Bible, but both the short and long conclusions are later spurious additions.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966), Volume 9, page 240, said about these verses: “The manuscript tradition indicates that the Gospel originally ended at 16.8, but that the longer ending that is incorporated in the Vulgate was later added, becoming widely accepted in the course of the 5th century. . . . Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it. . . . Mark 16.1-8 is a satisfactory ending to the Gospel insofar as it declares Jesus’ Resurrection-prophecy to be fulfilled.â€Â

A proper conclusion that Mark could not have written these verses and that they are no part of the inspired Word of God is their content. There is no evidence that Christ’s followers were commanded or able to drink deadly poison without being hurt, as stated in verse 18.(Compare 1 Cor 4:6, to follow the "rule" to "not go beyond the things written")

 

[Gerhard Ebersöhn]

Hello Gerhard,
Eusebius was aware of the of the longer ending to the book of Mark, saying that it was not in any of the "accurate copies" of early Bible manuscripts. One such manuscript may have been a palimpsest (erased manuscript and then written over) found in 1892 at the St. Catherine Monastery at the base of Mount Sinai. It is a a late second or early third century copy of the four Gospels into Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, which was a language commonly spoken in Jesus' day.

In this manuscript, Mark 16:8 is the end of this book, with then a little row of circles followed by a little space and the beginning of Luke. Thus, this ancient manuscript provides evidence that Mark 16 ended with verse 8, and that verses 9-20 are not part of the Bible, but both the short and long conclusions are later spurious additions.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966), Volume 9, page 240, said about these verses: “The manuscript tradition indicates that the Gospel originally ended at 16.8, but that the longer ending that is incorporated in the Vulgate was later added, becoming widely accepted in the course of the 5th century. . . . Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it. . . . Mark 16.1-8 is a satisfactory ending to the Gospel insofar as it declares Jesus’ Resurrection-prophecy to be fulfilled.â€Â

A proper conclusion that Mark could not have written these verses and that they are no part of the inspired Word of God is their content. There is no evidence that Christ’s followers were commanded or able to drink deadly poison without being hurt, as stated in verse 18.(Compare 1 Cor 4:6, to follow the "rule" to "not go beyond the things written")

GE:
No fine, I do not contend any facts you mention, only some deductions or inferences made.

"Eusebius was aware of the of the longer ending to the book of Mark," --- accepted
"... saying that it was not in any of the "accurate copies" of early Bible manuscripts." --- not accepted.

"One such manuscript may have been a palimpsest (erased manuscript and then written over) found in 1892 at the St. Catherine Monastery at the base of Mount Sinai. It is a a late second or early third century copy of the four Gospels into Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, which was a language commonly spoken in Jesus' day." --- accepted; even the possibilities or no possibilities.

"In this manuscript, Mark 16:8 is the end of this book, with then a little row of circles followed by a little space and the beginning of Luke. Thus, this ancient manuscript provides evidence that Mark 16 ended with verse 8," --- accepted.

Not accepted :
"... and that verses 9-20 are not part of the Bible, but both the short and long conclusions are later spurious additions."

"The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966), Volume 9, page 240, said about these verses: “The manuscript tradition indicates that the Gospel originally ended at 16.8, but that the longer ending that is incorporated in the Vulgate was later added, becoming widely accepted in the course of the 5th century. . . . Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it. . . . Mark 16.1-8 is a satisfactory ending to the Gospel insofar as it declares Jesus’ Resurrection-prophecy to be fulfilled.†--- accepted 100%.

"A proper conclusion [[is : I inserted]] that Mark could not have written these verses and that they are no part of the inspired Word of God is their content." --- Not accepted. The word 'proper' is subjective and predisposed.

"There is no evidence that Christ’s followers were commanded or able to drink deadly poison without being hurt, as stated in verse 18." --- Not accepted; The word or idea that "Christ’s followers were commanded" anything in the 'ending', is illegitimate for purely its absence.

I believe these 'commandments' must rather be understood for promises of God's faithfulness.
And also, that they were to serve as marks or proofs of apostleship. No one after the apostles have any right more to claim these assurances. That's where the trouble with the interpretations of this Scriptures starts - false claims of apostleship, like the charismatics or pentecostals make.

"(Compare 1 Cor 4:6, to follow the "rule" to "not go beyond the things written")" ---- not accepted, because not relevant in any way, not even in the sense of "the things written" --- which the 'ending' certainly had been from its origin.

 

[Gerhard Ebersöhn]

Here is that example I wanted to give of the legitimate use of Marks' longer ending, which is valid for all time, especially for our own,
"The Lord's generation is one family, Psalm xxxii. 30, but the generation of vipers is another, Matt. xxiii. 33; a believer and an infidel are not to have one part, their portions differ much; the eternal God has drawn a straight line, by which every man's portion falls to him: "The lines are fallen to me in pleasant places," says David, "yea, I have a goodly heritage," Psalm xvi. 6. It was pre-appointed for him, 1 Thess. v. 9. And a wicked man's heritage, or portion, comes from God's pre-appointment also "This is the portion of a wicked man from God, and the heritage appointed by God," Job, xx. 29. If a man receive righteousness from the God of his salvation, it is God's line that has reached to him, Isa. xxxiv. 17; and, if mercy and peace are upon him, he is an Israelite indeed, and enjoys his blessings only while he walks by God's rule, Gal. vi. 16. And wo be to that man who breaks through God's bounds, Exod. xix. 21; Job, xiv. 15, removes his line, Psalm xix. 4, or puts a crook in his rule, Philip. iii. 16. It is true, we have some who regard neither God's bounds, lines, rules, nor hedges: but those who break through shall find the infernal serpent bite them, Eccles. x. 8.
However, Universal Charity has gone great lengths in this work; she has presumed to couple JEHOVAH and Jove together, as in Pope's Universal Prayer, where the saint and the savage are set on a level also. Others, armed with the iron breastplate of a seared conscience, are fighting against the most essential truth of the Bible; and, by the dint of magic art, explaining away the sense of others, to make them comport with carnal reason, Isa. xli. 21. Others are counterfeiting the Holy Ghost's secret flame of love to God and his chosen, under the name of Universal Charity; and by this means endeavouring to unite the world and the church together; though God says, "Come out from among them, and be ye separate."
William Huntington 1745-1813, 'The Arminian Skeleton'

 

[rstrats]

I’m resurrecting this topic since there may be some new readers that might have some information with regard to my OP.

 

[rstrats]

Anyone?

 

[rstrats]

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

 

[John 8:32]

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

The Diaglott says...

Mark 16:9 Having risen and early first of week he appeared first to Mary the Magdalene, from whom he had cast seven demons.

 

[rstrats]

John 8:32,

re: "The Diaglott says...Mark 16:9 Having risen and early first of week he appeared first to Mary the Magdalene, from whom he had cast seven demons."


I'm afraid I don't see how your comment is responsive to the OP. I wonder if you might explain?

 

[Butch5]

Does anyone know of a published author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection which in turn they used - at least in part - to justify the establishment of the first day of the week as a special day for rest and worship?

Hi rstrats,

I don't know about using Mark 16:9, however, Justin Martyr speaks of Sunday worship about 160 AD.

Justin Martyr First Apology

Chapter 67. — Weekly worship of the Christians.


And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Interesting thread, I am reading through, but let me start here, post #15.

Mark 16:9 (AV)
Now 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.

A poster on another forum, 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.

This is a nonsensical perspective of that writer. Every verse of scripture is important and vital.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Does he try to cut up all books to say "this verse is doctrinal for me" "this verse is not" ? And one man's doctrine is another's fluff-puff. The other guy's doctrine is the non-essential one, while mine is the essential one. Henry Allen Ironsides has a nice quote about this game.

Incidentally, the section is very significant in New Testament chronology harmony studies.

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 has 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.

Fair enough. Although there is a grammatical question that you can see in our pure Bible text. To get a smidgen fancy, "early the first day of the week" is the terminus ad quem of when Jesus was risen.

I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, quote Mark 16:9..

True, but how the doctrinal dots are supposed to be connected is a puzzle. The verse does not say, "the first day of the week, the new sabbath" , although that could be extrapolated by a Harold Camping type.

The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that."Â - I have not yet been able to come up with one, hence my query.

Ok, let me keep reading the thread.

And can you give a link to the other forum ? Or the name ? I see you have asked this question on a few boards, so I may look at those threads too, after this one ... hmmm ... I see you have been asking the same question for 6 years. Clearly, a lot of the forums have been unresponsive, but maybe you can give us the best answers.

Oh, the traditional ending is in 99.9% (999 out of every 1000) of the Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts. And is clearly referenced by early church writers before our manuscripts (especially Irenaeus in the 2nd century). The idea that there is any question at all is simply the residue of the Hortian Fog, creating confusion in the modern version editions from the 'Critical Text' (the textus corruptus).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
http://purebible.blogspot.com/