Відео

And? You can't assume this means the early Christians didn't think there were none of those events that took place.

The longer ending of Mark is attested in Irenaus which is written at a date (not the manuscripts) to before the Alexandrian manuscripts and an amazing analysis on the word numbers of all the gospels shows the Gospel of Mark must have had the same number of words as that Mark has with the longer ending of chapter 16 has. ua-cam.com/video/Aye8q9tIrws/v-deo.html Once I saw that amazing sequence I gave up any doubts over the longer ending and Mark attesting the resurrection appearances. Preaching that Mark ends with the women scared and running away not telling anyone us just scholar or preacher trying to be novel and unique...it's just mistaking a fragment dropping off as if it's the ending.

Mark knows of the resurrection however. Mark 14:28, 16:7z

​@@Liminalplace1Except that evidence against the authenticity of the long ending of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) includes that it: • is marked-off and/or annotated in many of the existing 1,653 _Greek_ manuscripts to indicate that it is suspect; • has a style and vocabulary that differs from the rest of the Gospel, showing that someone else wrote it; • in numerous manuscripts is replaced by or included with other endings (e.g. Codex Washingtonianus); • is missing from Old Latin, Syriac, Armenian and Georgian manuscripts; and • was regarded as spurious by numerous early church writers including Eusebius, who wrote that “the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark [at 16:8] . . . in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies”. Jerome and, later, Severus of Antioch, reported that most of the manuscripts known to them had the shorter ending. Hesychius of Jerusalem likewise affirmed that "the more accurate copies" of Mark ended at 16:8, as did the 6th century writer of a commentary attributed to Victor of Antioch.

Dr. Witherington is NOT dead.

*tips fedora*

No such thing as an unbiased college

@@andys3035 true that. The early education system was brought about by Christians and nowadays has basically thrown God out with the bathwater. NC/Chapel Hill where NT theology is taught by scholar skeptic Dr. Bart Ehrman. I wonder what his mentor, Dr. Bruce Metzger would have to say. Hoping he comes back to the faith he professes to have once had. Shalom

Still alive - and probably far more biblically literate than you'll ever be.

Mark is against everyone though. No one really gets a free pass; be they Sadducee, Pharisee, ordinary folk, the Apostles themselves, nor the women at the end. To my mind he's making a rhetorical point about the difficulty in following Jesus and the failure of even those who claim to follow him; the stark ending of the women running away in fear leaving space for "us", the reader, to stay true to the cause and bear our crosses. That's a speculative reading, and this next inference is also speculative, but if I'm right it suggests that the standard Jesus narrative; his Resurrection and all, were well established to Mark's immediate readers, giving him freedom to omit things and play with the narrative to make his point. He's not trying to convince his readers of anything, he's presuming their beleif and asking if their behaviors match. That's just my pet theory anyway

Do you not understand English. Dr literally said that Mark translated the Gospel from aramaic to Greek. Peter preached the GOSPEL in aramaic and mark translated it in Greek. It was written by mark.

I think Papias is a better witness to history than you. I think Ben's work on the historical Jesus shows his skills in history.

@@Liminalplace1 wrong, but thanks for playing.

outhouse848 wow what a good defense

@@VIV-Official whats funny is Paul here thinks Papias is credible, when most scholars think the opposite. Eusebius even though he was lacking intellect. This is a lousy excuse when we only have two sources that are quoting Papias, and one source thinks he is an idiot

outhouse848 well that all sounds good, but all of the external evidence we have for this Gospel reach essentially the same conclusions. That is, this is a Gospel composed from the memories of Peter. Now, that could be for a number of reasons: maybe they all rely on Papias and he got his information wrong. Which doesn’t necessarily seem to be the case, but it’s certainly possible. Or, they all got the information wrong in the same exact ways. Which is rather odd and I’d be interested for you to show me other historical parallels where with disregard all external evidence for a document the way you have this one. But, external evidence aside, you’ve spoken nothing on the internal evidence in Mark that in many ways seems to connect the gospel directly with Peter.