More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
February 10 - February 14, 2019
vv. 11, 14: is not a Markan word.
?
is not a Markan word (n.b. in 16:14). v. 12: is non-Markan. v. 14: is non-Markan.
Unless mark wrote this......
is Johannine not Markan.
!!!
Paul also borrowed hymns that were already in use in the early church, e.g., the kenosis hymn in Philippians 2:5–11; the “Christ hymn” in Colossians 1:15–20, and the hymn in 1 Thessalonians 5:16–22. The author of the Pastorals also uses a hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16.
Obviously not a true conservative with bible
I am unwilling to credit Mark with the incorporation of this allegedly previously composed ending into his new Gospel.
He is full of himself
If
If
Let us now briefly examine the problems I have detected in the first three verses of Mark and which are more fully expounded in an article.
We may argue that the original authors of the biblical texts were themselves inspired but to pretend that their words were transmitted unchanged is stretching credulity to its breaking point.
My work on MSS makes it clear to me that the New Testament is nowhere free from accidental and deliberate error and that the text certainly was never transmitted free from blemishes. It is our task as text critics to identify these secondary accretions, wherever they may occur and in whatever MSS.
Arrogance
Let me tip my hand at the beginning: I am absolutely convinced that the Longer Ending (Mark 16:9–20)2 is original based on the external evidence, and that it deserves the canonical status it has enjoyed throughout church history. I therefore have consistently preached and taught these verses as the inspired Word of God. In fact, I have even been known to go so far as to quote the Markan version of the Great Commission in public (16:15).3 In my judgment, the internal evidence, while interesting and controversial indeed, holds no satisfactory solution to the problem. What it does reveal is that
...more
From the above it is clear that Peter was personally responsible for the text of our Gospel of Mark, and that it was composed not only after Matthew and Luke, but also with their aid. However, despite the fact that it was highly prized by the church as the personal reminiscences of Peter, it did not enjoy a universal circulation because it was not intended to supersede either Matthew or Luke. Indeed, it is rarely quoted by the early fathers, and the first commentary on it dates only from the fifth century. We have seen that its process of composition was quite unlike that of Matthew or Luke,
...more
Matthew is the fundamental Gospel and the most important, but each was written and published in response to a particular need of the church in a particular historical situation. The real significance of Mark lies in the fact that it was Peter's guarantee that Luke was fit to be read beside Matthew in the churches of both Peter and Paul.
is that I hold to the shorter ending of Mark as original, and that the next most likely option is that the original end went missing very early on.
sometimes we are not clear about where the evidence starts and stops (forming the dots), and where “connecting the dots” (i.e., interpreting and making judgments) begins. Sometimes we differ on what are dots and what are dot connectors. In addition, sometimes the evidence brings us to forks in the road. Depending on which route we take, our resulting view may well change.
Three such potential forks in this discussion on Mark's ending are one's view of the Byzantine family of texts, one's take on the synoptic problem, and how one weighs internal versus external evidence (in fact, if internal evidence is really hard evidence at all).
Now this is a postmodern reading of Mark,
