Mark 16 17

Mark 16:17 Mark & Mary Markham markhamm at
Wed Sep 2 17:44:11 EDT 1998


I have recommended this forum! Survey Report of October 19, 1997 I understand the passage is in question and with solid reason. What I needis for someone to be kind enough to send me a wave file of this excerpt fromthe verseGlossais lalesousin kainais.Pretty please?I would like to hear it pronounced. I don’t care which way anyone of the twoaccepted methods will be fine.Thank you.Markmarkhamm at


I have recommended this forum! Survey Report of October 19, 1997

People who read this article also liked:


18 thoughts on “Mark 16 17

    1. Troy Day Greek may be used to identify authorship (not always though as Luke and Josephus seem to have had a common vocabulary) and over longer periods of time it can well specify approximate dates. Additionally letter formations can in certain cases identify a particular generation. For example, according to Carsten Theide, the Rawlings manuscript of Matthew uses pre-50 AD letter formations that identify it as quite early. This is also the manner used to defraud the claim that the Talpiot tomb was that of Jesus as the letter formations were pre-Herodian. However the manner in which you are attempting to use it is irrelevant. Just hot air.

      Again you sound like the defenders of global warming.

    2. Troy Day Your examples prove nothing because examining the Greek is a flawed method of determining preeminence unless they are separated by several decades or more. Neither I nor anyone else can site Greek formations that either prove or disprove an exact order within the same generation. . Again both texts appear to derive from a since lost manuscript or series of manuscripts. You cannot jump from one Greek word to another to demonstrate which is the earliest unless they are separated by decades or preferably by hundreds of years. And even then more detail is preferable. What part of that isn’t sinking in? .

    3. Troy Day Troy Day says:

      This excerpt is taken from Carl S. Patton in Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (London: The Macmillan Company 1915), pp. 13-16.

      Just a brief statement of the theory that Mark’s Gospel is an abstract of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

      Tho this theory is no longer defended, it may be worth while to summarize the more general considerations which have led to its abandonment.

      1. It is impossible, upon this theory, to account for the omission by Mark of so much of the material that stood before him in Matthew and Luke. He has omitted most of the parables and sayings. He has added no narrative. He has therefore made an abstract in which much is omitted, nothing is added, and no improvement is introduced. No reason can be assigned for the making of such a Gospel by abstracting from the fuller and better Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The abstract not only adds nothing of its own, but fails to preserve the distinctive character of either of its exemplars.

      2. If Mark had wished to make such an abstract, it is impossible to explain why in practically every instance he follows, as between Matthew and Luke, the longer narrative, while his own narrative is longer than either of those he copied. In the story of the healing of the leper, for example, Matthew (viii, 1-4) has 62 words, Luke (v, 12-16, without his introduction) has 87, and Mark (i, 40-45) has 97. In the healing of the paralytic (Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26) Matthew has 125 words, Luke 93, and Mark 110 (Mk ii, 13-17; Mt ix, 9-13; Lk v, 27-32). In the parable of the Sower (Mk iv, 1-9; Mt xiii, 1-9; Lk viii, 4-8) Matthew has 134 words, Luke 90, and Mark 151. In the interpretation of that parable (Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii, 11-15) Matthew has 128 words, Luke 109, and Mark 147. Many more such instances might be given. In every case the additional words of Mark contain no substantial addition to the narrative. They are mere redundancies, which Matthew and Luke, each in his own way, have eliminated.

      3. Mark contains a large number of otherwise unknown or unliterary words and phrases. For example, σχιζομενουσ, i, 10; εν πνευματι ακαθαρτω, i, 23; κραβαττος, ii, 4, and in five other places; επιραπτει, ii, 21; θυγατριον, v, 23; vii, 25; εσχατως εχει, v, 23; σπεκουγατωρ, vi, 27; συμποσια συμποσια, vi, 39; εισιν τινες ωδε των εστηκοτων, ix, 1; εισ κατα εισ, xiv, 19; εκπερισσως, xiv, 31. Such expressions might easily have been replaced by Matthew and Luke with the better expressions which they use instead of these; they could hardly have been substituted by Mark for those better expressions.

      4. Mark contains many broken or incomplete constructions; as in iii, 16+; iv, 31+; v, 23; vi, 8+; xi, 32; xii, 38-40; xiii, 11, 14, 16, 19; xiv, 49. Such constructions would be easily corrected by Matthew and Luke; they would not easily be inserted into the narratives of Matthew and Luke by Mark.

      5. Mark has many double or redundant expressions, of which Matthew has taken a part, Luke sometimes the same part, sometimes another. Such instances may be found in Mark’s Gospel at ii, 20, 25; iv, 39; xi, 2; xii, 14; the corresponding passages in Matthew and Luke will show their treatment of these redundancies.

      6. Mark uses uniformly και, where Matthew and Luke have sometimes και and sometimes δε. Mark’s use shows him to be nearer the Hebrew or Aramaic. No explanation can be given for his substitution of this monotonous conjunction in the place of the two conjunctions used by Matthew and Luke. The variation in Matthew and Luke of Mark’s one conjunction is entirely natural.

      7. Mark has many Aramaic words, which he translates into the Greek; see especially iii, 17; v, 41; vii, 11; vii, 34. It would be easy for these to be dropped out by writers making use of Mark’s material for Hellenistic readers; but very unnatural for Mark to have inserted these Aramaic words into the Greek texts of Matthew and luke.

      8. Mark’s narrative thruout is more spirited and vivid than either Matthew’s or Luke’s. It would be much easier for these graphic touches to be omitted for various reasons by Matthew and Luke, even tho they found these before them in the Gospel of Mark, than for Mark to have added these touches in copying the narratives of Matthew and Luke. One may mention especially the details about the appearance and dress of the Baptist (Mk i, 6); the four men carrying the litter (ii, 3); the statement, “He looked around upon them with wrath, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts” (Mk iii, 5); the names of persons, and their relatives, unknown to the other evangelists, the description of the Gadarene demoniac, the additional details of the conversation between Jesus and the parents of the epileptic boy (ix, 20-24), and many similar items.

    4. “7. Mark has many Aramaic words, which he translates into the Greek; see especially iii, 17; v, 41; vii, 11; vii, 34. It would be easy for these to be dropped out by writers making use of Mark’s material for Hellenistic readers; but very unnatural for Mark to have inserted these Aramaic words into the Greek texts of Matthew and luke.” OF COURSE MARK HAS ARAMAIC WORDS HE TRANSLATED INTO GREEK. HE WAS USING AN ARAMAIC TEXT TO GATHER PEROCOPES FROM.



    5. Troy Day Troy Day says:

      You argued priority of Matthew I see you are now slowly changing your argument toward Q or some sort. I have not written about that yet, my point being only Markian priority proven by the Greek text. Aramaic words do not prove copying but priority hence the proto-Gospel. What you are saying may sound probable to you but it is not provable by the actual Greek text. I am yet to see an example from the actual Greek text of Mark (or Matthew) that proves Matthean priority. Just general talk has been presented! All and while the examples I’ve given a very specific. This verse mk 16 17 proves alone proves Mt had nothing to do with it

    6. Troy Day I take the view that both are independent of the other but relying on a third source. My original point was that the original closing of mark was similar to if not identical to Matthew 28. You took exception to that and tossed in a pile of comparisons to what I think is a Greek translation of the Aramaic. Such has nothing to do with the point at hand. If indeed Q is was the Aramaic Matthew or even if it was not then of course it predates Mark. Again your cut and paste method proves nothing to the contrary.

    7. Beyond that, right now I am in the midst of a dialogue with Muslim leaders in the hope that they will take a position against Hamas. We have had some previous success with convincing them to declare a fatwa against certain of the more radical hadiths. But other than wat I have already said, I really don’t have time to waste on this chicken or the egg debate you seem to want to make an issue over.

    8. Verses 9 through 20 are those in question. And the last time I checked, verse 16 falls between 9 and 20 so it is apparently an interpolation as well. The two earliest manuscripts from the Alexandrian school end abruptly at verse 8. Only those from the Antioch school have 9 thru 20. And even that is suspect because we have at least one Antiochan manuscript that records the last 12 verses as the product of Ariston the presbyter; who presumably was the scribe who composed John’s Gospel.

      Again I am among those who do not regard the last 12 verses as Markan. For the hundredth time, I am of the opinion that the missing ending, if we had it, would read similar to Matthew 28:9 thru 20. Again I think John A. T. Robinson was correct. That was the point of my original post. Now I suppose you could make the case that the newer ending is still accurate since Aristion could be expected to have gotten the account from John. But Mark did not write it.

      So one more time, you cannot expect to find Mark 16:9 thru 20 anywhere in Mathew because the verses are an interpolation. That is to say that they were added on when the original ending, for whatever reason, was lost. So examining the Greek to determine which came first will not accomplish anything. HOWEVER if I am correct, since the previous chapters of Mark parallel the previous chapters of Matthew, then you could expect to find the missing verses of Mark in Matthew 28 since that is where the parallel ends.

      Now can I please get back to my Muslim friends. No offence but that conversation is more important

    9. Troy what part of this do you not understand? I cannot give you a “Greek example” of something that was not there in the first place. Both passages in my view derive from a since lost Aramaic text. Now please drop this conversation. I have better and more important things to do..

  1. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    further more on Pappias who was citing two Gospels named Mark and Matthew from the first century (they appear to have been written then one after the other considering how early Papias is) that is further different from our Mark and Matthew seems to be pushing credulity.

    This seems like a rather big coincidence and amazingly unlikely as well, it seems much more logical and reasonable to assume that when Papias tells us of two first century Gospels written first by Mark and then Matthew, that he’s talking about the ones that are known to us today.

    This explanation is much more historically probable than positing two gospels named Mark and Matthew from the first century that appeared to be canonical to Papias in order to dance around what is otherwise a clear testimony of who wrote what gospels and when

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.