Translations.

[JimmyB]

One of my favorite translations is the NET v 2.1.  Not only is it a clear readable translation, but the text is accompanied by over 60000(!) notes.  Here is the note regarding the "long ending" of Mark...

 

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B sy^s sa^ms arm^mss geo^mss Eus Eus^mss Hier^mss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). This is known as the “short ending.” The following “intermediate” ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This intermediate ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 579 pc); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the “long ending” (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has unique material between vv. 14 and 15] Θ ƒ¹³ 33 M lat sy^c,p,h bo); however, Eusebius (and presumably Jerome) knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses. Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the intermediate and the long endings. Their vocabulary, syntax, and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence indicates that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the likelihood that early scribes had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded today as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.” For further discussion and viewpoints, see Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, ed. D. A. Black (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008); Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (London: Pickwick, 2014); Gregory P. Sapaugh, “An Appraisal of the Intrinsic Probability of the Longer Endings of the Gospel of Mark” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012).sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

[JimmyB]

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

Deadworm, you pontificate from ignorance, and have, obviously, not read a standard, scholarly book on Textual Criticism.

Do you see how useless such arrogant claims are (even though I corrected your solecisms)?

Apparently you don't know the facts about the majority Byzantine Text.  The thousands of Greek manuscripts that make up the Majority Text agree with each other far better, and have fewer copyists errors, than the handful of extant oldest manuscripts.

The oldest manuscripts probably survived, in relatively good condition, for this long, for two main reasons:

1) They were in a dry part of the world (Egypt - a hotbed of false teaching in the early centuries, and an embarrassment to the church at large).

2) They were hardly used, due to their sub-standard quality, so they did not wear out and did not have to be copied and replaced.

It's not a "point"; it's a vacuous claim, without any corroboration.  It undermines the word of God and would leave Mark ending, in a ludicrous way, in 16:8.

Do you believe every solitary comment, without supporting evidence, made in Greek manuscripts?  You do realise that the comments are uninspired and contain people's opinions, don't you?

I would recommend you to read "The Ancient Text of the New Testament", by Prof. Jakob van Bruggen, and, "The Identity of the New Testament Text", by Dr. Wilbur Pickering.  I've read some other good ones as well, in case you want to find the truth.

Aside from the non-Markan style of the "long ending" of the gospel, the ending of the gospel in 16:8 is a perfectly logical stopping point.  Have fun with the snakes and poison!

[David1701]

2 hours ago, JimmyB said:

Aside from the non-Markan style of the "long ending" of the gospel, the ending of the gospel in 16:8 is a perfectly logical stopping point.  Have fun with the snakes and poison!

I've been poisoned because of witnessing for the gospel (I'm not joking), and I survived, although it was very unpleasant.  Paul was bitten by a venomous viper and survived (the locals knew the kind of snake and expected Paul to swell up and die).  I suppose you think that that was blind luck, do you?

The lunatics who make snakes drowsy, then pick them up and dance around with them, are not believing Mark 16:9-20; they are tempting God.

If you think that it's "logical" to end Mark on the lowest of low notes, in fear and unbelief, then I feel sorry for you.  I pray that God would open your eyes.

It's funny how some Christians think that they know better than God's people for the last couple of thousand years.  They seem to revel in their unbelief and intellectual pride, in spite of having nothing to be proud about.

Edited August 9, 2022 by David1701

[Willa]

I respect the ESV because it has returned many of the passages left out by so called earlier manuscripts.  It is very readable.   But NKJV is probably more reliable.  I like to compare them.  

A lesser known translation is the (ALT3)  Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament, Third Edition by Gary F. Zeolla. It reads a little like Amplified but includes much less opinion.  It is an excellent reference and uses the 2nd edition of the Byzantine Majority text.

[David1701]

8 hours ago, Willa said:

I respect the ESV because it has returned many of the passages left out by so called earlier manuscripts.  It is very readable.   But NKJV is probably more reliable.  I like to compare them.  

A lesser known translation is the (ALT3)  Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament, Third Edition by Gary F. Zeolla. It reads a little like Amplified but includes much less opinion.  It is an excellent reference and uses the 2nd edition of the Byzantine Majority text.

I have all three of those translations (well, I have the ALTD, which is easier to read than the ALT3, because the notes don't clutter up the text), and several more besides.  It's good to have various translations to compare.

The World English Bible (WEB) is also quite a good, freely available translation, based on a Majority Text (in the NT); and the English Majority Text Version is a good New Testament, also based on a Majority Text.

Edited August 10, 2022 by David1701

[Deadworm]

23 hours ago, David1701 said:

Deadworm, you pontificate from ignorance, and have, obviously, not read a standard, scholarly book on Textual Criticism."

LOL, I was Bruce Metzger's student at Princeton and he is probably the greatest Text Critic of the late twentieth century.  Readers will note how Metgzer decisive refutes the legitimacy of the KJV's poorly attested inclusion of John5:7-8.

https://choosinghats.org/2010/12/the-comma-johanneum-a-critical-evaluation-of-the-text-of-1-john-5-7-8/#:~:text=The phrase “ Comma Johanneum ” is the,refers to the writings of the Apostle John.

David 1701L "Apparently you don't know the facts about the majority Byzantine Text."

I was a Teaching Fellow at Harvard in New Testament, a theology professor for several years, and know Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.  Talk about hubr

 

[George]

Let's stay on topic ... I've removed several posts in this thread.  Personal attacks will always be removed!

[David1701]

4 hours ago, Deadworm said:

LOL, I was Bruce Metzger's student at Princeton and he is probably the greatest Text Critic of the late twentieth century.  Readers will note how Metgzer decisive refutes the legitimacy of the KJV's poorly attested inclusion of John5:7-8.

Perhaps you didn't realise that I was merely mirroring your insult back to you, to show you how empty and profitless such things are.  It was not intended to be taken as my view, merely a mirror to yours.

1 John 5:7,8 is not the subject of discussion, although there is plentiful evidence for it in the Latin manuscripts and ECFs.  Some Critical Text readings are included, in the CT, on the basis of far less evidence...

Quote

I was a Teaching Fellow at Harvard in New Testament, a theology professor for several years, and know Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.  Talk about hubris

Then you should know that the Byzantine text type manuscripts, in general, agree better and have fewer copyists errors than the tiny number of oldest extant Greek manuscripts.  Seriously, this is not a matter for debate; it is widely acknowledged, including by proponents of the Critical Text.

Edited August 10, 2022 by David1701

[JimmyB]

23 hours ago, David1701 said:

I've been poisoned because of witnessing for the gospel (I'm not joking), and I survived, although it was very unpleasant.  Paul was bitten by a venomous viper and survived (the locals knew the kind of snake and expected Paul to swell up and die).  I suppose you think that that was blind luck, do you?

The lunatics who make snakes drowsy, then pick them up and dance around with them, are not believing Mark 16:9-20; they are tempting God.

If you think that it's "logical" to end Mark on the lowest of low notes, in fear and unbelief, then I feel sorry for you.  I pray that God would open your eyes.

It's funny how some Christians think that they know better than God's people for the last couple of thousand years.  They seem to revel in their unbelief and intellectual pride, in spite of having nothing to be proud about.

It's funny how some Christians, including yourself, think that they know better than God's people for the last couple of thousand years.  I pray that God will open your eyes.  

Edited August 10, 2022 by JimmyB
removed personal retort

[David1701]

30 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

It's funny how some Christians, including yourself, think that they know better than God's people for the last couple of thousand years.  I pray that God will open your eyes.  

Feel free to tell us all how many English translations of the Bible end Mark at 16:8.  I'm sure you know better than the translators.