blessings to all that are willing to discuss or debate.
If indeed thats where the text ends, and they said nothing because they were seized by trembling and astonishment how did the text he does accept ever come to be written?
Scholars and historians are almost universally agreed that Mark is our earliest Gospelby several decades, and this insight turns out to have profound implications for our understanding of the Jesus story and how it was passed down to us in our New Testament Gospel traditions. Mark had the intention to include the information in Mk. Notice, too, that Paul mentioned twice that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus were according to the Scriptures. Those events confirmed that prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures about the Messiah had come true, thus proving that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah.
Whats happened to you? In either case, Matthew and Luke would have written stories that agree more closely with each other and with Mark. We must denounce paganism, idolatry and lies that stem all the way back to the Sumerians and Egyptians. Still no mention of Tatians treatment of Mk. Second, it was not illegal to supply the information at the end since it was not an embellishment it was historical and factual. he appeared = Physical reference to his body Aiding and abetting the lie fomented by the chief priests and elders!
I was recently made aware of Dr. Tabors work via this publication, and am now disappointed in him. It is obvious your grasp on bible history was a slippery hold. We dont even need the gospels to prove the physical resurrection. There are some questionable assumptions in this blog.
If he is perfect and able to speak life into existence, then he is smart enough to provide a comprehensive book that reveals his will and plan for mankind.
She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. . Silence during the crucifixion as if he felt no pain. This could be consistent with a docetic view of Jesus which was common in Gnostic circles. That tell us nothing other then wishful thinking. 339 Thats right. Moreover, Jesus was miraculously raised to life in the spirit!1 Pet. Its not like they conjured up a story, they only filled in what the rest of the gospel writers gave us through their eye-witness accounts. In addition, as stated above by other posters, earlier editions are not indicative of truer ones. The writer states, This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies. Tabor writes about forged endings of Mark and then uses his speculation and non-gospel material to elucidate on the missing ending.
Paul notably parallels his own visionary experience to that of Peter, James, and the rest of the apostles. Ed.
The church killed many scientist who dared proclaim that the Earth was round and not flat, but turns out they they spilled innocent blood unjustly. An interesting article and thought provoking. And Gods the one the dishonoring of His Sabbath is errantly placed, as My Holy Spirit just jumps every single time my eyes or ears come in contact with this exact issue.
There were other sets of books not identical to the modern accepted books of Moses. It is a done deal. You have to remember most writing is for the people at the time not for the people 2000 years in the future. The author of Marks gospel had knowledge of Josephus Antiquities (about 90 CE or so).
11) appears to also reflect the Gospel of Matthew (Mt. (1341.4) 121:8.3 1.
(as stated dated:1929).
It is an individual belief. So the evidence is not as clear as you want everyone to believe on the ending of Mark.
^ ^ ^
14), contemporary New Testament scholars rightfully note that the Gospel of Peter is a second century A.D. work. And Mark not interested in the birth of Jesus?
Perhaps there WAS a Nativity introduction in Mark, which stopped being copied sometime before Matthew and Luke? (1) Any suggestion that resurrection in the ancient pagan world means other than a bodily rising from the dead must be rejected. But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee (Mark 14:28).
The Gospel of Matthew is a prime example with its guard at the tomb of Jesus. You also asked if I would agree that Mark 16:9-20 is self-evidently taken from the compressed endings of Matt, Luke, and John. No; I do not agree; the pastiche theory is contrived; it only looks plausible at a distance, not up close. Thenmonths or a few years after Jesus deatha couple of women disciples see a man in the distance, at sunset, and in the silhouette of the fading sunhe looks like Jesus. Mike, care to give us a link to this find? Thing completely impossible for probability rules. The authors assertion that these additional verses were added because the original ending was deemed deficient requires more than a little bit of speculation on his part, as I doubt anyone alive today knows why the text was altered or precisely when. If the guards did not arrive at the tomb until the late afternoon of the second day, that would mean that the tomb had been unguarded and unsealed for TWENTY FOUR hours!
What made Paul so sure of that? There are two possible Gnostic examples in 4:10 [paragraph 4] and 5:19 [paragraph 5]. Could be, but not provable. Rev. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century, add and omit passages from each other thus we do not know how reliable those copies were in which these codices copied from. 2. In fact, often just the opposite. However, the version of the oral story that this man hears circulating in Rome at the time tells of an empty tomb, the tomb of a member of the Sanhedrinso Mark writes down the story. Originally it indicated the day of the wave sheaf, but Jewish practice, even back then, shows great controversy over this detail, producing arguments between Sadducees and Pharisees (both were wrong). Codex Alexandrinus, written just 50 years later, does include the ending of Mark and so does Textus Receptus and codex Washingtonius. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying12 , one at the head and the other at the feet. This is because although the life expectancy of that culture may have been generally much less than ours, given that there were over 500 witnesses to the Resurrected Christ, and most were still alive when Paul was writing in AD 50, we can quite reasonably assume that a number of them lived until 2 or 3 decades after he wrote 1 Corinthians 15, which would mean that a number of the eye witnesses of the Resurrected Christ would still have been alive when Marks gospel was written. Heres the thing, though: Mark does not need to be the person who attached verses 9-20, or even the person who wrote them, in order for these 12 verses to be part of the original text. . The truth came out and I thank GOD the Earth is not flat. 7, 11) lacks historical credibility.9 The confession of the Jewish authorities makes more sense in a context after A.D. 70 where the Jews were blamed for the destruction of Jerusalem as a result of not accepting Jesus as the Messiah. Notice in this quote from Matthew chapter 27 below that the Pharisees do not ask Pilate for guards to guard the tomb until the next day after Jesus crucifixion, and, even though Joseph of Arimethea had rolled a great stone in front of the tombs door, he had not SEALED it shut! Wheres the logic? maybe they meant they took his body to give a proper burial in the Galil and to visit his burial site there? Not to be combative, but a theological supposition, built on top of another theological supposition based upon a hypothesis, an passed off as self-evident or fact leaves a lot to be desired. If the post-resurrection scenes from the other three Gospels are not authentic, are you in fact saying that two millennia of the hopes of Christian believers are founded on exaggerations? Although Mark was a lad lingering about many of the scenes which he depicts, his record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. OK this is a tough one. That includes Mark 16:9-20. So, honestly, friend: Which of the above two stories about Jesus is more probable to be true? 3) Do you plan on running more articles of this nature in the future?
In fact, according to John, that was her only logical conclusion. I would refer interested readers to http://truthceeker.wordpress.com/tag/lukan-priority/ for an excellent discussion of issues raised here. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. The women told no one what theyd experienced. I will post more. Its becoming more clear to me that these are some of the reasons why the Jews of that time (as today) rejected these strange pagan ideas! The Freer Logion, not verses 9-20, is the whole expansion to which Metzger refers in that paragraph. You dont really say. The assumption is that this order of the Gospels is a chronological one, When in over 50 years of Bible study and teaching I have only heard. The ending that isnt written isnt going to get your throat cut. Ever hear of peer review? Unfortunately we use now days gnostics texts from Egypt, where gnostics used to have habbit of removing certain texts, insteading of accusing Christians adding texts.
I now share with you one of the MANY citations of the Prophet of God, William Marrion Branham: 333 He said, Mother, we learned over at the college that Mark 16 from the 9th verse on is not inspired. They borrow heavily from Marks story, from another common source (Q), and from other sources that they do not seem to have shared.
Does anyone know what was the earliest church council to recognize the LE as part of Mark? Your supporting evidence is Peters gospel which is not included in the bible, thus not the most convincing. It is sort of strange how a few peasants could outwit the government officials of the time as well as the majority of clearly hostile public including even mothers who had preferred a criminal (Barrabas). I do not agree with Metzgers view that verses 9-20 are the work of an author other than the evangelist; he over-extrapolated.
Until they can investigate the ossuary boxes and provide DNA analysis to prove they found the actual body of Christ, the other accounts hold validity- there was no physical body in the tomb.
We have found the potential remains of amelia Earhart along with other historical figures, and have take in depth photos of pluto and now understand genomes, but they have not definitively found Jesus.
Craig Evans wisely notes, Given Jewish views of corpse impurity, not to mention fear of cemeteries at night, the author of our fragment is unbelievably ignorant (Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 83). Regarding the ruling priest spending the night in the cemetery, no ruling priest would actually do that. If one believes in God, and that He is powerful enough to keep His word accurately preserved, then you have to take Mark 16:9-20 as part of the inspired word of God. This textual scholar extraordinaire vindicated the reading factually from all the apostates who were trying to remove it from the Scripture. Evans wisely states, . I dont need to believe that someone died for my sins to want to live in a way that is of benefit to mankind and promotes righteousness and peace. Conservative scholars have long accepted that it was not original. Paul began with the confident statement that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was resurrected. We found this in Qumran too. Therefore reveal your righteousness now thus they spoke to Christ. According to paragraphs 8 and 10, the Jewish elders and scribes actually camp out in the cemetery as part of the guard keeping watch over the tomb of Jesus. What I would like to know is: 1) Did you personally approve of this article?
GOD Bless. Also these 2nd century authors, Iraneus, Justin Martyr, Taitian, either quote it or refer to it. Apart from anything else, the central argument is illogical: Mark knew nothing about appearances of Jesus (a very weak argument from silence) so the other gospels make it all up? The writers also use 1st-century Judaic idioms which 21st century readers misunderstand as physical descriptionsdue to Greek transliterations of the synoptic gospels.
A study of Genesis will substantiate this, but is contriversial (satans seed) When God wanted his people to have their land, God told them to kill every man woman and child in the cities God sent them to. The Gospel of Peter was allegedly discovered in 1886-1887 during excavations in Akhmm, upper Egypt. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripturebut it is patently bogus.
I also wonder what could have fueled such obvious motivation in this small apparently defeated group. Mr. Tabors articles are a source of comedy; Ill give him that.
Marks Gospel is typified by a degree of secrecy and understatement. Luke clearly consulted Mary his mother, and Matthew other sources. *Still* no acknowledgement of Irenaeus quotation of Mark 16:19? Your SOPHISTRY is too late for me to swallow! And later we see the monotheism of new religion is in serious danger and then we add the fourth and later the explanation of trinity. Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 1st one has to believe that satan has his own seed here on earth and they work against Gods plan for us while we are here on earth. I believe, when we pass on, we get to explain our beliefs with Jesus, and we will all be amazed at how little we all know.
It pre-dates Mark or is contemporary to Markand is a major source for Luke and Matthew?
59 So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. If U honestly believe our Lords words are inerrant, then please respect His words. The only hole is in your misunderstanding of the New Testament account as found in Matthews gospel. It seems like if I can prove my theory right, then I have proved who God is, but really, I have proven nothing, but how smart I think I am.
I like the theory that Mark was unable to finish and went back later to add the other verses, but even if a scribe or other sort of meddler added these bogus verses, neither ending are in conflict with the other disciples stories. ii.
I very much appreciate the observations of Dr. Tabor. They begin to preach the Gospel of Jesus, telling everyone how he has risen from the dead, as he had promised. Background Information about the Gospel of Peter. I notice most Christians become either polarized with anger or paralyzed with fear at the thought that their Holy Bible might not be so holy and might contain ungodly additions and myths.
These include: He mentions John 1-20, but not 21. Im talking about 1 Corinthians 15 of course! Simple. James Tabor presents a fresh look at the original text of the earliest Gospel.
So the most reasonable conclusion is that for the original Apostles, and for Paul, and for the first 20-30 years AP (after Pentecost), Jesus was divine REGARDLESS of the place of birth, lineage or manner of conception, so they did not mention it, and they were STILL not mentioning it when Mark wrote his Gospel.
The Resurrection story actually describes how Jesus exited the tomb with two giant angels, a super-sized Jesus, and a talking cross.
Nothing presented here corroborates this claim except for additional subjective statements. 3. Is their failure final? 16:9-20 is an amendment to the Gospel of Mark (An Introduction to the New Testament, 1992). Finally, what we recently discovered in the Talpiot tomb under the condominium building, not 200 feet from the Jesus family tomb, offers a powerful testimony to this same kind of early Christian faith in Jesus resurrection. In Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov, eds.
And a response was heard from the cross, Yea.10. Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update. Assumptions affect our lives and spoken and written words create realities whether they are true or not. The words liberal and conservative are interesting here. See!
or with the other women?) I suppose that to the strictest letter he is not bastardizing the Bible, but he sure does allude to some pretty unbiblical thigns.
There was no Christianity as religion. just a series of affirmations and assertions and Athanasius never included them in the canons. Burgon was a REAL CHRISTIAN, born of the Spirit, and who knew the Scripture needed to be defended from all the unregenerate children of Hell, the wolves in sheeps clothing who were attacking it.
If so, it sounds like some variety of Docetism, perhaps dressed up as progressive Christianity. But even more significant is Marks strange ending. The amendment should not be referred to as forgery or false information. Required fields are marked *. more skeptical and dismissive of tradtional Christianity) What happened to the source Q? This second-century date of authorship is in conformity with modern New Testament scholarships appraisal of the Gospel of Peter. Matthew says Joseph and Mary started out living in Bethlehem, Jesus was born there, and they were probably planning to stay in Bethlehem for life, but divine warning of Herods slaughter led them to Egypt until Herod died, then to Nazareth rather than back to Bethlehem. Parts that are not mentioned assume that the reader is familiar with the customs and practices of the 1st century assemblies/followers of Judaism.
Point one mark wrote his gospel while in Rome with Luke and Paul,who was a prisoner there. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. Complete text of gospel of Mark 1:1-16:20 discovered in Judea wilderness cave, Archaeologists date to 1st century A. D. (Just like so many other so called Bible blunders). Mark 14:28 To further compound the problem of the conflicting resurrection accounts, Johns Gospel continues to unfold with Mary returning to the tomb a second time, only to find two angels sitting inside the tomb.
Youre expressing opinion not fact. Neither can he believe in the redemption of the Physical Body in the general resurrection, nor by implication, the Redemption of the Earth, with a New Heaven and a New Earth, if in Tabors theology, everything physical is to be spiritualised. Jesus often spoke of being raise on the third day. I think it also safe to assume that Tabor himself, does not believe that Christ was Physically resurrected in His body, but the problem that he creates with this unbelief, is that by that theory, he cannot explain why Jesuss body was absent from the tomb (without inventing some get out clause, like someone stole the body etc).
If this is indeed the direction you are heading Mr. Shanks, I would respectfully request that you remove the B from the BAR. ANGELS WERE THERE ALL THE WHILE! But,Dr.
This is part of our faith. They are scared of its implications.
If you think you found his bones now, why didnt they bring it out later in the first century when Luke etal were claiming a physical resurrection. Christianity become more convenient for humanity of Christ by the sins of Jesus death that was mistakenly God that died on the cross for virgin Mary kids in mistaken for people hearts to dexore to learn to go with eating for days and to be come weak for his mistaken for people to live and journey there soul of arise to be reborn sanyct to reborn freedom of Christ. 10 When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders; for they too were hard by keeping guard. where exactly did you find this? Also Gospel of Nicodemus written prior to the codices, quotes the ending of Mark too. So I looked it up. If this site has a reply person, and a copy of aforementioned letter is desired, it can be provided. I believe God works miracles, perhaps even supernatural ones, but one does not need to surmise that in this case. New Scientist, 1955 issue 6 I think, published an analysis of NT books as written down at dictation to professional scribes on standard sheets, folded, bought eight sheets at a time, lined and written at standard spacings.
16:9-20?
They were human beings. Since Paul was well versed in Jewish law it has been suggested it was Mathews scroll on the life of Jesus written in Palestine about 41 AD. [] The Strange Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference []. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.
Mark tells the reader in short but clear fact that Jesus appeared to people after the resurrection.