Steven Avery
Administrator
Pure Bible Forum
ending of Mark authenticity history starting in 1500s
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-authenticity-history-starting-in-1500s.1823/
Mark ending positions - true authenticity and various dodges
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ns-true-authenticity-and-various-dodges.1335/
===========================
Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...k/640980123414520/?comment_id=642393326606533
NON-AUTHENTICITY.
Bruce Metzger ("ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark")
James Snapp (convoluted Markus Interruptus theories, see sinking pericope page)
Peter Gurry ("Scripture, something like an ancient appendix.")
David W. Hester
And I strongly encourage you not to let them try to pull this shake and bake game with you.
TRUE AUTHENTICITY
Note: Kelhoffer lists defenders
Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (2000)
James A. Kelhoffer
https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz6VrD_8C&pg=PA19
https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783161571657_A39292182/preview-9783161571657_A39292182.pdf
John William Burgon
Edward Freer Hills (and AV defenders in general)
Maurice Robinson
Wilbur Pickering
Nicholas P. Lunn
Jeffrey Riddle (and Confessional and Reformation defenders)
Jonathan Borland
George Salmon
Jean Paulin Martin
Paton James Gloag
https://archive.org/details/introductiontoth00gloauoft/page/200/mode/1up?view=theater
The style is not wholly different from that of Mark. The passage is certainly a category of particulars, but still it is not wanting in traces of Mark's graphic style ...
If, then, the Gospel once had a conclusion, actual or intended, we are entitled to ask the objectors to this passage, What has become of it ? Two answers have been given to this question. The one, favoured by Norton,3 is that Mark was prevented finishing his Gospel; either because Peter, to whom he was indebted for his information, perished at this time in the persecution by Nero (Michaelis), or because Mark himself died (Davidson). Both of these are merely gratuitous suppositions. Mark was not so entirely dependent on Peter...
We therefore feel constrained to come to the conclusion that Mark xvi. 9—20 is a genuine portion of the Gospel.
Joseph Knabenbauer (1839-1911)
http://books.google.com/books?id=jXfLBYYamcgC&pg=PA435
Greek and Latin
A Harmonized Exposition of the Four Gospels, Volume 4 (1908)
Andrew Edward Breen (1863-1938)
http://books.google.com/books?id=owE9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA610
note: see also
http://books.google.com/books?id=4iJHAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA424
wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Breen
p. 610
It must be conceded that the close of Mark’s Gospels is very condensed, and thus causes some obscurity, but we shall see in the treatment of his text that there is no contradiction between him and the other writers. We believe therefore that these verses were originally in the text of Mark, but that they were purposely cut off in the two great codices. Comely and Knabenbauer assign as the cause of this excision the fact that
the Alexandrian Church terminated its fast and celebrated the Resurrection at midnight: the other churches began their celebration at dawn. The Alexandrian Church erroneously believed that Matthew favored their usage; and as these verses of Mark seem to conflict with their usage, they cut off these verses. This opinion is a mere conjecture, and is unsupported by any historical evidence. It seems far more probable to assign the cause which moved Eusebius to state that the verses were not found in the accurate Greek codices. This cause was the belief that in the designation of the time of the Lord’s Resurrection, Mark contradicted St. Matthew. When Marinus consulted Eusebius, the latter, in perplexity at the difficulty, appealed to the absence of the verses from the codices. Hence it is logical to suppose that the same difficulty moved others before the time of Eusebius to drop these verses from the codices. Such has happened in other portions of
While therefore it is not absolutely certain that Mark wrote these verses, it is of faith that they are inspired Scripture. From the acts of the Council of Trent it is learned that when the Council declared that the books of the Vulgate “should be received with all their parts, ” their intention was to include these verses of Mark in their definition. The Cardinal of Trent declared “that the decree was made to the end that no
doubt might henceforth exist concerning these portions of Scripture.”
Klostermann
says that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene. To answer this Knabenbauer conjectures that Jesus did not appear to the women immediately after they left the tomb; but later in the day, and to this cause he attributes the fact that the two disciples on the way to Emmaus knew nothing of such appearance. He believes that Matthew in his abridged account groups events together which were separated by some interval.
Breen
p. 611
John Gwynn
Richard Lenski
Frederic Charles Cook
https://books.google.com/books?id=H10_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA308
Scrivener
Six Questions (1875)
https://books.google.com/books?id=MAE-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA139#v=onepage&q&f=false
Eusebius
lauds Broadus and Burgon
Plain Introduction (1883)
http://books.google.com/books?id=hZQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA583
This fact has driven those who reject the concluding verses to the strangest fancies ;—namely, that, like Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before his work was completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away. We emphatically deny that such wild surmises 2 are called for by the state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of KB. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but against their verdict we can appeal to the reading of Irenaeus and of both the elder Syriac translations in the second century; of nearly all other versions ; and of all extant manuscripts excepting two. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those who are reluctant to recognise S. Mark as its author, are content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record originally delivered to the Church1.
Bishop Wordsworth
John Brown McClellan
Bleek
Hilgenfeld ?
ECW
Kirchhofer
Flip around ?
John William McGarvey
Broadus
Morison
Unsure
Benjamin W. Bacon
Andrew Cain
McDill
Edwards
Wernle
Kelhoffer
ending of Mark authenticity history starting in 1500s
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-authenticity-history-starting-in-1500s.1823/
Mark ending positions - true authenticity and various dodges
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ns-true-authenticity-and-various-dodges.1335/
===========================
Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...k/640980123414520/?comment_id=642393326606533
NON-AUTHENTICITY.
Bruce Metzger ("ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark")
James Snapp (convoluted Markus Interruptus theories, see sinking pericope page)
Peter Gurry ("Scripture, something like an ancient appendix.")
David W. Hester
And I strongly encourage you not to let them try to pull this shake and bake game with you.
TRUE AUTHENTICITY
Note: Kelhoffer lists defenders
Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (2000)
James A. Kelhoffer
https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz6VrD_8C&pg=PA19
https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783161571657_A39292182/preview-9783161571657_A39292182.pdf
John William Burgon
Edward Freer Hills (and AV defenders in general)
Maurice Robinson
Wilbur Pickering
Nicholas P. Lunn
Jeffrey Riddle (and Confessional and Reformation defenders)
Jonathan Borland
George Salmon
Jean Paulin Martin
Paton James Gloag
https://archive.org/details/introductiontoth00gloauoft/page/200/mode/1up?view=theater
The style is not wholly different from that of Mark. The passage is certainly a category of particulars, but still it is not wanting in traces of Mark's graphic style ...
If, then, the Gospel once had a conclusion, actual or intended, we are entitled to ask the objectors to this passage, What has become of it ? Two answers have been given to this question. The one, favoured by Norton,3 is that Mark was prevented finishing his Gospel; either because Peter, to whom he was indebted for his information, perished at this time in the persecution by Nero (Michaelis), or because Mark himself died (Davidson). Both of these are merely gratuitous suppositions. Mark was not so entirely dependent on Peter...
We therefore feel constrained to come to the conclusion that Mark xvi. 9—20 is a genuine portion of the Gospel.
Joseph Knabenbauer (1839-1911)
http://books.google.com/books?id=jXfLBYYamcgC&pg=PA435
Greek and Latin
A Harmonized Exposition of the Four Gospels, Volume 4 (1908)
Andrew Edward Breen (1863-1938)
http://books.google.com/books?id=owE9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA610
note: see also
http://books.google.com/books?id=4iJHAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA424
wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Breen
p. 610
It must be conceded that the close of Mark’s Gospels is very condensed, and thus causes some obscurity, but we shall see in the treatment of his text that there is no contradiction between him and the other writers. We believe therefore that these verses were originally in the text of Mark, but that they were purposely cut off in the two great codices. Comely and Knabenbauer assign as the cause of this excision the fact that
the Alexandrian Church terminated its fast and celebrated the Resurrection at midnight: the other churches began their celebration at dawn. The Alexandrian Church erroneously believed that Matthew favored their usage; and as these verses of Mark seem to conflict with their usage, they cut off these verses. This opinion is a mere conjecture, and is unsupported by any historical evidence. It seems far more probable to assign the cause which moved Eusebius to state that the verses were not found in the accurate Greek codices. This cause was the belief that in the designation of the time of the Lord’s Resurrection, Mark contradicted St. Matthew. When Marinus consulted Eusebius, the latter, in perplexity at the difficulty, appealed to the absence of the verses from the codices. Hence it is logical to suppose that the same difficulty moved others before the time of Eusebius to drop these verses from the codices. Such has happened in other portions of
While therefore it is not absolutely certain that Mark wrote these verses, it is of faith that they are inspired Scripture. From the acts of the Council of Trent it is learned that when the Council declared that the books of the Vulgate “should be received with all their parts, ” their intention was to include these verses of Mark in their definition. The Cardinal of Trent declared “that the decree was made to the end that no
doubt might henceforth exist concerning these portions of Scripture.”
Klostermann
says that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene. To answer this Knabenbauer conjectures that Jesus did not appear to the women immediately after they left the tomb; but later in the day, and to this cause he attributes the fact that the two disciples on the way to Emmaus knew nothing of such appearance. He believes that Matthew in his abridged account groups events together which were separated by some interval.
Breen
A Harmonized Exposition of the Four Gospels
books.google.com
John Gwynn
Richard Lenski
Frederic Charles Cook
https://books.google.com/books?id=H10_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA308
Scrivener
Six Questions (1875)
https://books.google.com/books?id=MAE-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA139#v=onepage&q&f=false
Eusebius
lauds Broadus and Burgon
Plain Introduction (1883)
http://books.google.com/books?id=hZQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA583
This fact has driven those who reject the concluding verses to the strangest fancies ;—namely, that, like Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before his work was completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away. We emphatically deny that such wild surmises 2 are called for by the state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of KB. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but against their verdict we can appeal to the reading of Irenaeus and of both the elder Syriac translations in the second century; of nearly all other versions ; and of all extant manuscripts excepting two. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those who are reluctant to recognise S. Mark as its author, are content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record originally delivered to the Church1.
Bishop Wordsworth
John Brown McClellan
Bleek
Hilgenfeld ?
ECW
Kirchhofer
Flip around ?
John William McGarvey
Broadus
Morison
Unsure
Benjamin W. Bacon
Andrew Cain
McDill
Edwards
Wernle
Kelhoffer
Last edited: