NR: New Reformationist
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?
I have a library full!! I don't know of a 'pro-Sunday-worship' book --- 'theology', 'dogmatics', call them what you want --- that does not make use of Mk16:9 to support Christian Sunday-worship.
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.
Do you believe Jesus was resurrected on the Sabbath (Seventh) Day?
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.
9 Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.
This is the correct word for word translation from the Original Greek in the New Testament, into English. Any help?
“Any help?” I’m afraid not. Thanks anyway.
Amazing.... God is the author of all things including the New Testament.
How could it be that he is no help for you? You sought the answer from a Published Author, yet did you have eyes to see...... ?
Apparently not. I wonder if you might explain how the quoting of Mark 16:9 is responsive to my OP?
Scripture tells us the day is a sabbath..... God is the published Author, now I guess the only question we are left to ask, is scripture referring to the first day of the week? That could possibly be.... does not God have the power to do anything, who ever said Sunday was the Sabbath ? tradition? Here scripture tells us the first Sabbath day he was raised, correctly translated scripture to word for word Greek into English.
I’m sorry, but I guess I will just have to continue to not understand how your comments are responsive to my OP.
I would hesitate to use any part of Mark from 16:9 onwards in any kind of scholarly argument, as Mark 16:9 to the end of this gospel were added sometime later and do not reflect the writings of the original author. Originally, Mark ended with the women running away when they were afraid. The passages shown in 16:9 onwards are not present in the earliest manuscripts of Mark and the passage about followers of Jesus picking up snakes and drinking poison and not being harmed somewhat stand out as being alien to the rest of the Markian gospel.
I would NOT hesitate in any manner to use any part of Mark from 16:9 onwards in any kind of scholarly argument because although Mark 16:9 to the end of this gospel was added sometime later it in no manner is in conflict with the writings of the original 'author' --- who obviously was no less of a collector of 'sources' than was Luke. For what reason on earth can the later addition of a portion of the Scriptures render it invalid? How much of the Scriptures are we going to have left over if we take that route? All four Gospels are compilations of 'texts', each to the preferences of the 'author' or 'authors' of each Gospel. What's difficult about that? Does that interfere with the 'Inspiration' of the Gospels or whichever other book of the Bible? Are we of so little faith?
SW3 does make a point, but we are dealing with translations mainly interpreted from the TR. Some things need to taken into consideration, mainly the use of the word "sabbath" in some Bibles. The word 'sabbath' or sabbaton can mean one of two things:
Strong's Ref. # 4521, Romanized sabbaton .... of Hebrew origin [HSN7676]; the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications: KJV--sabbath (day), week.
In order to harmonize with the rest of the Gospel books (since none of the them support a sabbath resurrection) it would be proper for the translators to insert the word "day" for clarity. So, we are looking at [the first day of the interval between two sabbaths].
We do know from other Gospel passages that He rose sometime right after sunset of the first day and sunrise of the same first day.
What scriptures are you using to support your statement that, “We do know from other Gospel passages that He rose sometime right after sunset of the first day and sunrise of the same first day”?
Now for your question, “Does anyone know of a published author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection?”:
Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
With all due respect, I do not see where Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1 say anything with regard to the actual day of the resurrection.
Ok, let me bounce back on you. What day do you believe He was raised and why are you looking for proof that the first day was changed to the Sabbath?
Also, who said the day was changed in the first place?
I don’t know. It could have been either the seventh day or the first day.
And I’m not looking for proof that the first day was changed to the Sabbath. I don’t see how you can get that from what I say. Someone who was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, said 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.
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. 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. The poster came back with: “Quote a published author who has done that.” — I have not yet been able to come up with one, hence my query.
9 Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.
This is the correct word for word translation from the Original Greek in the New Testament, into English
This, "9 Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene ...” in fact is the wrong 'word for word’ translation from the Original Greek, "anastas de ... efaneh"; it should be, "Risen, He appeared". A Participle that shows how Jesus, "appeared": "As the Risen (One)". "Anastas" is no Verb; it does not tell that Jesus (then) 'rose'. If it were a finite, Indicative Verb, it would have meant Jesus then-was-rising from the dead.
In truth, “Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath, He appeared”, simply is telling a lie, because it means that Jesus as-He-was-rising, was-appearing-to-Mary, and she would have been seeing Him— which of course, she did not!
I’m afraid that I can not find where SW4 uses Mark 16:9 to place the resurrection on Sunday. Strangely, though, he does reference Matt 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1, none of which mention a resurrection, much less the timing of it.
Some people rely on a sunrise reckoning of the day in Mt28:1 in order to get the Resurrection on Sunday. But they are in every respect confused.
It is a fact no Gospel in its 'passion-narratives' mentions Jesus' resurrection directly. Only Mt28:1, directly describes the circumstances and time of occurrence -- in other words, implies the reality of the resurrection of Jesus, happening. It is the only Gospel that – by implication – tells when, Jesus rose from the dead. Mk16:9, does not say directly when the Resurrection took place, nor does any other Gospel or NT book wherever, despite the fact they all imply the Resurrection any time before the first discovery of an opened grave.
Where in the Greek is 'protos' meant to mean 'first Sabbath'? Where in the original Greek is the term 'sabbata’ used to denote the first day? Where in Mark is it used except to denote the seventh day Sabbath?"
I cannot imagine anyone would say 'protos' meant 'first Sabbath', really! 'Prohton' in Mk16:9c, means 'first' in Adverbial, chronological order: Jesus appeared first to Mary -- alone -- before he appeared to any other. "He appeared to Mary first, early on the First Day of the week" -- Sunday. "First day of the week" from "prohtehi sabbatou": "On the first ('day' by Ellipsis). ‘First (day)’ means ‘first’ in Adjectival, sequential, numerical sense, “The First Day” in the sequence of the days “of the week”, “sabbatou”.
Note that the singular, 'sabbaton' — Genitive, 'sabbatou' is used in Mk16:9 – not the Plural, 'sabbatohn', as in Mt 28:1. Then nowhere in Mark, is 'sabbatohn' (Plural) used to denote the Seventh Day Sabbath.
NR asked if anyone knew 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. Virtually every author that believes in Sunday-sacredness and who has 'published', has "used (Mark 16:9) to justify the establishment of the first day of the week as a special day for rest and worship" –
because of the wrong assumption 'anastas' means 'rose' -- simply. It is the grand reason for Sunday-sanctity.
I think the principle as such of Jesus' resurrection why the day of its occurrence should have special meaning for the Church, is sound, and Biblical. The only problem is, Did Jesus rise from the dead on Sunday? Calvin taught differently; and so must have thought differently the translators of the KJV who translated Mt28:1 "In the Sabbath"; and other translations --- all 'old' ones --- "On the Sabbath". Note how the 'new' 'translations' speak of "After the Sabbath"! They must have realised the 'old' versions' destructive implications for their Sunday-tradition!
Here scripture tells us the first Sabbath day he was raised, correctly translated scripture to word for word Greek into English.
This is a hackneyed 'non-issue' if ever there has been one. Be careful how you advertise your knowledge and mastery of the Greek language. Yours is incorrect and very far from "word for word Greek into English"!!
If it said "the first Sabbath day", it would not have said, "prohtehi sabbatou", but "prohtehi sabbatohi". But now by Greek 'style' or 'linguistics', it actually says, "prohtehi _hehmerai tou_ sabbatou" --- by Ellipsis as I said before. The concept 'day' is implied -- unavoidably!
We are dealing with translations mainly interpreted from the TR. Some things need to taken into consideration, mainly the use of the word "sabbath" in some Bibles.
I guess you are at a loss to explain how "we are dealing with translations mainly interpreted from the TR" with regard to the word 'sabbatou' in Mk16:9. I may be wrong, and therefore would appreciate if you could please show me these supposed discrepancies or just differences between and in the different 'texts', because I am not aware of any!
Now I am surprised how many make of Strongs virtually their first Bible, like here, where we must interpret the Bible according to information given in Strongs while the Bible and the NT in particular causes no problems in the understanding of its use of the word 'Sabbath' et al.
I could raise objections to the particulars here given by Strongs, but it would be both unnecessary and irrelevant. Let me only say Strongs' idea of the word 'sabbath' indicating "the interval between two Sabbaths" in all of the Bible and particularly in the NT is unfounded and totally imaginary. If an interval between two Sabbaths were meant, the Koine Greek had the best of linguistic tools to convey and express the idea 'word for word', literally, and exactly, just, like it had the proper 'tools' to convey and express 'word for word' literally and exactly the idea or concept of that reality called a 'Sabbath': by the hellenised Hebrew word, 'Sabbaton'. (I cannot see why one should view this word in the Greek of the Greek NT Scriptures, as a latinisation or "Romanised" word! Strongs occasionally as shown here can be very weak in fact! It goes to show, simply, no one is immune to that strong power called 'tradition'. Strongs came to the fore with these strange statements only because it (he / they) had no answers to the enigmas of the Sunday-resurrection tradition. Were it not for these unanswerable difficulties for Sunday-resurrectionists, Strongs would not have published its nonsense.
Some claim, "We do know from other Gospel passages that He rose sometime right after sunset of the first day and sunrise of the same first day."
But, Quote please? They do not know what they claim for fact so innocently. Nowhere else than in Mt28:1 will you read of anything implying the resurrection --- which is the only place, where time and day are given --- given for having been "In the Sabbath / On the sabbath".
Although St. Ignatius may not be using Mark 16:9 maybe if not probably because the idea to celebrate the Liturgy on the day Jesus rose predates the establishment of the cannon of Scripture.
St. Ignatius of
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master--how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.
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 Savior on the same day rose from the dead (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).
You may be putting the cart before the horse they were already celebrating the Liturgy on Sunday before they were even writing the New Testament. For the reasons testified too above.
I guarantee you this is the falsest 'Ignatius' possible!! It is so shameless I cannot think a Christian wrote it.
Ignatius says the OT prophets were disciples of Christ who did not legalistically "sabbatized, but according to Lord's life lived" their Sabbath-keeping, in other words, kept the Sabbath -- of the OT -- with NT-meaning, by celebrating it because of Jesus' resurrection from the dead.
There are many false Ignatius'; do not be deceived by them! The Lord's Day is the Day of His Lordship — the day of his conquering death and grave --- which the Bible foretold would be "the Seventh Day God thus concerning did speak", and Christ in actual resurrection confirmed was, "In the Sabbath", Mt28:1.
I see nothing in Matthew 28:1 that says when the resurrection took place. What do you have in mind?
Can't you read? Everybody can see the word 'resurrection' is not there, but just so must everybody can ‘see’ the resurrection happening, then!
You ask if I can read. Indeed I can, and I do not read where Matthew 28:1 says anything about a resurrection, much less the timing of one. “Now after the Sabbath, as the day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.”
Jesus’ resurrection is in there. To mention just one reason why: How and why did the women suddenly believe that He rose from the dead? Because "the angel answered / explained”, it, the Resurrection, “to the women"! The angel did not tell them about time and day for nothing!
That is why the Gospel is believed by faith (and "seen of angels" only) --- believed by the faith of hearing and not by a believing because of seeing. 'See', with the eye of faith, and all you can see, is Christ in the Glory of the Father being raised from
the dead "On the Sabbath Day" in Mt28:1.
I’m afraid that I am a bit dense here with regard to the point made, Isn't it interesting that the word for ‘week’ in Mark 16:9 is sabbaton? Somehow lots of people miss that. Could you please elaborate?
Sure. In Mark 16:9 the word "week" is actually the Greek word sabbaton — the sabbath. That taken into consideration it should be obvious that Jesus didn't necessarily rise on the "first day of the week" but on the "first day after the sabbath."
It is not ‘actually the Geek word sabbaton’; it actually is the Greek word ‘sabbatou’, “of the week”. If ‘sabbaton’ had been the case, then the Greek would have used an Accusative and no Genitive, and most likely with the help of Prepositions, like, “meta (mian) sabbaton”. So forget it; you’re lost!
Now, are both the same? Yes. Do both (the "first day of the week" and “on the first day after the sabbath") carry the same meaning? That depends on whether one recognizes the sabbath I suppose. More importantly I think is, it gives clearer meaning as to when Jesus actually rose. After the sabbath. After His rest in the tomb.
Quite incomprehensible to me, and certainly nothing explained! 'Sabbatou' in Mk16:9 means 'week', and it says "On the First Day of the week, early", with saying, “prohi prohtehi sabbatou”. There is absolutely nothing difficult about understanding this. You create difficulties in your own mind only!
Worse trouble starts with people making of the Participle, 'anastas' — 'risen' / 'as the Risen One', a Verb, and saying it means, "He rose";
Or people making 'anastas' a Present Participle, instead of the Aorist Participle it is, saying it means, 'rising' -- 'Rising He appeared' --- which is making it a lie because – besides the Grammatical factors – Jesus simply did not appear as He was ‘rising’ : Nobody ever saw Him rising from the dead!
Therefore, “On Sunday morning early, Jesus, having been raised from the dead, and risen, first of all appeared to Mary." All, ‘problems’, solved once for all: Jesus did not rise on Sunday morning; he was or had been raised from the dead already, "Late Sabbath's mid-afternoon before / tending / towards the First
Day of the week"— Mt28:1.
“Now after the Sabbath, as the day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.”
It’s a false 'translation' (in other words, it is a corruption) of the correct, "Late Sabbath Day’s mid-afternoon against the First Day of the week ..." --- correct and literal of "opse sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi eis mian sabbaton".
Next, the women "set off to see / went to go have a look”; they did not ‘arrive’. It can be categorically stated the women did not 'arrive', because they if they ‘arrived’ would have seen what then, was happening. (That, judging by the way you see, you obviously too will be unable to see.) But it is evident from all the rest of all the Gospels, the two women had seen nothing, and it is evident from Mt28:5 the women were “told” these things that indeed had happened about 15 hours before ---- but what you say you do not read of in this Scripture.
The Greek phrase "??? ??? ????????" refers to the first (day) of the week in every context in the New Testament, and ALL translators of whom I am aware (except the Concordant Translation), so translate it.
It becomes obvious that this is the meaning when one considers Matthew 28:1
Beg to differ on some important detail:
In Mk16:9 we find 'prohtehi sabbatou' Dative, "On the First Day of the week". (The Singular is of no consequence) --- it tells of the day "of the week", upon which Jesus "appeared to Mary".
In Mt28:1 though, we do not find the Dative, but the Accusative, "eis mian sabbatohn", "towards / against / before the First Day of the week". (Again, the Plural, sabbatohn, is incidental and of no consequence; it simply means 'week — of the week’.)
What we do find besides this Accusative of: “towards the First Day”, is the Genitive of: “In the Sabbath’s Day”! And that is what in the phrase gives the time of the event and events that "On / In the Sabbath" occurred; or, that were "OF the Sabbath's" occurrence -- which of course entailed Jesus' resurrection, which nobody seems is able to read or ‘exegete’ here, but without which, the whole passage would be absolutely senseless and worthless.
THE LORD'S DAY,
"This is the day which the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it." The day of the Resurrection: the new creation.
Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the
week" because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's
Resurrection. It recalls the first creation because it is the "eighth
day" following the sabbath. It symbolizes the new creation ushered in by
Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the
first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies
"We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead."
Sunday- fulfilment of the sabbath,
Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ.
"Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death."
The celebration of Sunday, observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all." Sunday worship, fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.
Everything above here claimed for Sunday, belongs to the Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD your God, and has been stolen from it, and has been given to the usurper-lord, Sunday – in fact all, on the assumption of this one, false, claim: Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."
More importantly I think is, it gives clearer meaning as to when Jesus actually rose. After the sabbath. After His rest in the tomb.
Jesus did not rise "after the Sabbath" You will find this only in translations made since the translators became aware of the truth of the older translations that used to have "In", or "On the Sabbath". They feared the consequences for their Sunday-dogma, but had no fear for the Word of God, so nonchalantly just changed the Word of God, and 'translated' to, "After the Sabbath ... on the First Day" — an impossibility for the Greek, 'opse sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi eis mian s.' It is horrific!
But what is far more horrific, is that you say that Jesus rested in the tomb!! Death is the wages of sin; how dare you make it Jesus' 'rest'? No! Jesus' 'rest' was to have been raised— from death and to have "Entered Into His Own Rest As God In His Own" Victor, through resurrection from the dead. "Then", was it, that God found and founded His Sabbath Day's Rest, "As He raised Christ from the dead .... by the exceeding Greatness of His Power Which He Worked In Christ."
Re: "....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 unambiguous is the time— given: "In the Sabbath’s fullness of mid-afternoon before the First Day of the week".
I sorry, but Matthew 28 does not say WHEN the resurrection took place.
No sir, Matthew 28:1-4 does say ‘when’, the Resurrection took place. You are questioning the Resurrection, because the time clearly 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 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 fishy questions and doubts. No sir, even the Sunday-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
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 Day.
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 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?
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 God the Son, Jesus Christ: in and through resurrection from the dead!
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
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.”—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
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 not written by St. Mark, or not found in the best copies.” (Source of information — Watchtower Library)
Alright; Eusebius might not have known of the longer endings' 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. Once these things are understood for what they are:
1) Signs of apostleship, and,
2) Of figurative application to all other believers,
no problems are left with believing them for the Word of God.
I have before made notice, that none 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 Mk16-20 got preserved proves God's protecting hand over his genuine written Word.
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!
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
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.”
The proper conclusion is that Mark could not have written these verses and that their content is no part of the inspired Word of God. 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 1Cor.4:6, to follow the "rule" to "not go beyond the things written")
No fine, I do not contend any facts you make mention of, only some deductions or inferences made.
"Eusebius was aware 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
"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. Black on white facts cannot be argued about.
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%.
" The proper conclusion is that Mark could not have written these verses and that their content is no part of the inspired Word of God." --- 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 the absence of command. I believe these 'command/-ments' 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 – when false claims of apostleship, like by the charismatics or pentecostals are started being made.
"(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.