The Longer Vs the Shorter Ending of Mark 16.

Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches

Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums Aimoo Forum List | Ticket | Today | Member | Search | Who's On | Help | Sign In | |

Title: The Longer Vs the Shorter Ending of Mark 16.

Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Didaktikon debunks Revivalist 'Theology' Go to subcategory：

Author Content

Ex_Member

Rank：

Score：0

Posts：0

From：Unknown

Register：21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted：02/12/2009 6:00 AMCopy HTML

Hi Everyone,

Thought I'd have a stab a picking something to kick off Didaktikos Debunking Revivalist Theology room.

I have in my library "The New International Greek Testament Commentary - NIGTC - The Gospel of Mark. R.T.France., Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan., Pasternoster Press. 2002."
Page 685, France clearly states;

" ..what is the virtually unanimous verdict of modern textual scholarship, that the authentic text of Mark available to us ends at 16:8, "

However revivalist soteriology is almost exclusively based on verse 16 and 17 and yet the revivalist methodology of blatant eisegeses only accepts parts of verse 17 whilst excluding other remaining parts of the verse. Namely believers "will speak with new tongues" whilst excluding "they will cast out demons". In the revivalist ignorance of Greek grammer the demonstrative pronoun for "these" as in "these signs shall follow" is "tauta" and it is nominative neuter, PLURAL, thus pointing directly at both tongues and demons. (and also I might add to the picking up of snakes and laying hands on sick and what not etc.) Also I might add that in their methodology of eisegeses, the revivalist soteriology builds itself by coupling together with Acts 2:38 and thus they come to an awkward unbiblical statement that defies orthodoxy of "having to speak in tongues to be saved."

But anyway just to open this discussion, France on Page 687 states:

" the almost unanimous conclusion of modern scholarship is that both the Shorter and Longer Endings, in their different ways, represent well-meaning attempts, probably sometime in the second century, to fill the perceived gap left by the 'unfinished' ending at 16:8, in the case of the Longer Ending by drawing eclectically on what had by then become the familiar traditions of the post-apostolic church, and these endings, particularly the longer, established themselves in general usage so that by the fourth century they appeared in many MSS, though by no means yet all (so Eusebius and Jerome). As time went on, the text concluding at 16:8 was increasingly forgotten, and virtually all later MSS included one (or occasionally both) of the endings."

Since there is no strength in the revivalist position and argument of the verses being inspired and since the RCI and RF have appeared to have dumped "Bible Numerics" from their "beliefs" which they have heavily relied upon as their sole support for Mark 16 as "being inspired", their entire soteriology therefore fails.

blessings
Eric

Didaktikon Share to: #1

Rank：New User

Score：681

Posts：23

From：Australia

Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re：The Longer Vs the Shorter Ending of Mark 16.

Date Posted：02/12/2009 9:56 PMCopy HTML

Eric, good morning.

Mark 16:9 ff is one of those "thorny" passages for Revivalists. It contains elements which they desperately want to grasp hold of and actively promote, but considerably more which they desperately wish wasn't there, and as such, which they largely skip over! And whilst it's perfectly valid that Christian scholarship (beginning with Origen and Jerome) has questioned the authorship of the traditional "longer ending", it's also the case that the "longer ending" was accepted as being canonical by the early Church. In other words, verses nine through twenty forms a part of Christian Scripture.

So having accepted that the "longer ending" is Scriptural, one must consider what it teaches, and then compare this to what Revivalism promotes.

To begin with, the most important teaching of the entire passage concerns the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the fact of the empty tomb. The "longer ending" of Mark succinctly confirms the eyewitness accounts contained in the Gospels According to Matthew and Luke, and was likely a source used by them. Next, the "longer ending" also confirms the "Great Commission"; the charge that we read of being fulfilled in Luke's Acts of the Apostles. In other words, Christ's resurrection itself forms the very basis for the commission to preach the Gospel! Third, Christ assured his hearers that belief in the Gospel would result in salvation! This belief would then be outworked via admission to a new "synagogue", the Christian Church, through the rite of proselyte baptism. Just as a Gentile identified with, and was admitted to the Synagogue of Israel through baptism, so too would believers in Jesus identify with, and be admitted to the Synagogue of Christ through baptism.

Before addressing the important points of contention, I'd like to summarise the "hierarchy" of what the "longer ending" to Mark 16 presents by way of a (mental) diagram consisting of concentric circles. The core is the fact of the resurrection. This forms the basis from which each other point develops and draws its authority. The first "ring" comprises of the requirement for the preaching of the Gospel, which is the immediate "ripple" resulting from the resurrection. The very next "ring", the second, is the promise that belief in the Gospel would result in salvation. And it is such belief which triggers the third "ring": baptism into the Church.

Having briefly established the taxonomy that the "longer ending" to Mark presents, we can now consider the issue of the "signs". To begin with, as the previous paragraph demonstrates, the signs are not "independent" or "self-evident" issues. They draw their authority from (1) the fact of the resurrection, (2) from the preaching of the Gospel, (3) from subsequent belief in the Gospel, and (4) from admission into the Church. As you intimated in your opening post, the signs are largely presented as "couplets": (1) drive out demons and speak with new tongues; (2) pick up snakes with their hands and drink poison without harm; (3) place hands on the sick to heal them. However, this is more of a literary or stylistic feature than it is a statement of function. What is most important; however, is that each of the statements incorporates what is known in Greek grammar as a categorical (or "generalising") plural. The purpose of this feature is to separate and distinguish groups from other groups: in this instance, Christians from non-Christians. This form of plural is very useful in that it yields itself to a generic notion, with the focus being more on the "action" than it is on the "actor". So the "signs" in the "longer ending" function to distinguish Christians as a group, from every other group. Second, the fact that the signs are appended as an implied apodosis to a Greek conditional statement (verse 16), indicates that they are predictive rather than promisory. These two factors combined, a conditional statement described via the use of categorical plurals, concretely indicates that the "signs" of Mark 16:17ff are corporate predictions and not individual promises!

The various Revivalist groups have sought to "explain away" the apparently "missing signs" in a variety of ways. However, the approach that these groups take to the act of interpretation requires that they display all of the "signs", all of the time! Quite simply, they don't have the luxury of claiming one or two and simply dismissing the remainder.

I have intended this post to be a fairly straight-forward summary of the major issues. For those who have a ken for detail, I've prepared a more involved essay on this very subject, one which can be accessed by copying the following link into an open browser:

https://image.aimoo.com/ForumImages/69dabc5d-4055-4ea0-a38a-9fcf49f1742d/080418_150449_55437823.pdf

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Copyright © 2000- Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.

Title: The Longer Vs the Shorter Ending of Mark 16.
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Didaktikon debunks Revivalist 'Theology'	Go to subcategory：

Ex_Member
Rank： Score：0 Posts：0 From：Unknown Register：21/09/2018 12:36 AM	Date Posted：02/12/2009 6:00 AMCopy HTML Hi Everyone, Thought I'd have a stab a picking something to kick off Didaktikos Debunking Revivalist Theology room. I have in my library "The New International Greek Testament Commentary - NIGTC - The Gospel of Mark. R.T.France., Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan., Pasternoster Press. 2002." Page 685, France clearly states; " ..what is the virtually unanimous verdict of modern textual scholarship, that the authentic text of Mark available to us ends at 16:8, " However revivalist soteriology is almost exclusively based on verse 16 and 17 and yet the revivalist methodology of blatant eisegeses only accepts parts of verse 17 whilst excluding other remaining parts of the verse. Namely believers "will speak with new tongues" whilst excluding "they will cast out demons". In the revivalist ignorance of Greek grammer the demonstrative pronoun for "these" as in "these signs shall follow" is "tauta" and it is nominative neuter, PLURAL, thus pointing directly at both tongues and demons. (and also I might add to the picking up of snakes and laying hands on sick and what not etc.) Also I might add that in their methodology of eisegeses, the revivalist soteriology builds itself by coupling together with Acts 2:38 and thus they come to an awkward unbiblical statement that defies orthodoxy of "having to speak in tongues to be saved." But anyway just to open this discussion, France on Page 687 states: " the almost unanimous conclusion of modern scholarship is that both the Shorter and Longer Endings, in their different ways, represent well-meaning attempts, probably sometime in the second century, to fill the perceived gap left by the 'unfinished' ending at 16:8, in the case of the Longer Ending by drawing eclectically on what had by then become the familiar traditions of the post-apostolic church, and these endings, particularly the longer, established themselves in general usage so that by the fourth century they appeared in many MSS, though by no means yet all (so Eusebius and Jerome). As time went on, the text concluding at 16:8 was increasingly forgotten, and virtually all later MSS included one (or occasionally both) of the endings." Since there is no strength in the revivalist position and argument of the verses being inspired and since the RCI and RF have appeared to have dumped "Bible Numerics" from their "beliefs" which they have heavily relied upon as their sole support for Mark 16 as "being inspired", their entire soteriology therefore fails. blessings Eric
Didaktikon	Share to: #1
Rank：New User Score：681 Posts：23 From：Australia Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM	Re：The Longer Vs the Shorter Ending of Mark 16. Date Posted：02/12/2009 9:56 PMCopy HTML Eric, good morning. Mark 16:9 ff is one of those "thorny" passages for Revivalists. It contains elements which they desperately want to grasp hold of and actively promote, but considerably more which they desperately wish wasn't there, and as such, which they largely skip over! And whilst it's perfectly valid that Christian scholarship (beginning with Origen and Jerome) has questioned the authorship of the traditional "longer ending", it's also the case that the "longer ending" was accepted as being canonical by the early Church. In other words, verses nine through twenty forms a part of Christian Scripture. So having accepted that the "longer ending" is Scriptural, one must consider what it teaches, and then compare this to what Revivalism promotes. To begin with, the most important teaching of the entire passage concerns the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the fact of the empty tomb. The "longer ending" of Mark succinctly confirms the eyewitness accounts contained in the Gospels According to Matthew and Luke, and was likely a source used by them. Next, the "longer ending" also confirms the "Great Commission"; the charge that we read of being fulfilled in Luke's Acts of the Apostles. In other words, Christ's resurrection itself forms the very basis for the commission to preach the Gospel! Third, Christ assured his hearers that belief in the Gospel would result in salvation! This belief would then be outworked via admission to a new "synagogue", the Christian Church, through the rite of proselyte baptism. Just as a Gentile identified with, and was admitted to the Synagogue of Israel through baptism, so too would believers in Jesus identify with, and be admitted to the Synagogue of Christ through baptism. Before addressing the important points of contention, I'd like to summarise the "hierarchy" of what the "longer ending" to Mark 16 presents by way of a (mental) diagram consisting of concentric circles. The core is the fact of the resurrection. This forms the basis from which each other point develops and draws its authority. The first "ring" comprises of the requirement for the preaching of the Gospel, which is the immediate "ripple" resulting from the resurrection. The very next "ring", the second, is the promise that belief in the Gospel would result in salvation. And it is such belief which triggers the third "ring": baptism into the Church. Having briefly established the taxonomy that the "longer ending" to Mark presents, we can now consider the issue of the "signs". To begin with, as the previous paragraph demonstrates, the signs are not "independent" or "self-evident" issues. They draw their authority from (1) the fact of the resurrection, (2) from the preaching of the Gospel, (3) from subsequent belief in the Gospel, and (4) from admission into the Church. As you intimated in your opening post, the signs are largely presented as "couplets": (1) drive out demons and speak with new tongues; (2) pick up snakes with their hands and drink poison without harm; (3) place hands on the sick to heal them. However, this is more of a literary or stylistic feature than it is a statement of function. What is most important; however, is that each of the statements incorporates what is known in Greek grammar as a categorical (or "generalising") plural. The purpose of this feature is to separate and distinguish groups from other groups: in this instance, Christians from non-Christians. This form of plural is very useful in that it yields itself to a generic notion, with the focus being more on the "action" than it is on the "actor". So the "signs" in the "longer ending" function to distinguish Christians as a group, from every other group. Second, the fact that the signs are appended as an implied apodosis to a Greek conditional statement (verse 16), indicates that they are predictive rather than promisory. These two factors combined, a conditional statement described via the use of categorical plurals, concretely indicates that the "signs" of Mark 16:17ff are corporate predictions and not individual promises! The various Revivalist groups have sought to "explain away" the apparently "missing signs" in a variety of ways. However, the approach that these groups take to the act of interpretation requires that they display all of the "signs", all of the time! Quite simply, they don't have the luxury of claiming one or two and simply dismissing the remainder. I have intended this post to be a fairly straight-forward summary of the major issues. For those who have a ken for detail, I've prepared a more involved essay on this very subject, one which can be accessed by copying the following link into an open browser: https://image.aimoo.com/ForumImages/69dabc5d-4055-4ea0-a38a-9fcf49f1742d/080418_150449_55437823.pdf Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com