G’day all,
Although U3A Class R09
is on hiatus over Term 2, 2022, the discussion forum and website are still
open.? Please feel free to comment on or
ask anything Bible-related.? For example, last Sunday
one of the participants sent an email with the following:
QUESTION FROM A PARTICIPANT:
Even if the class doesn't resume this term, are you still available
for comment on queries?
One I've meant to run past you for weeks concerns the final
verses of Mark's gospel and Pawson's comments on these in his Unlocking the
Bible.? No problem, though, if you want/need a break from this aspect of
your class as well.
ANSWER:
You ask two
questions, a general one about the ending of Mark and a more specific one about
David Pawson’s comments on it.? I’ll
address the latter first.
I love David
Pawson, consider him perhaps the finest Bible teacher of the modern era, and
rely heavily upon his work.? I owned and studied a
complete set of his VHS tapes including the entire “Unlocking the Bible”
series.? That said, there are a few
things that I disagree with, and one is the ending of Mark.? He accepted as fact that Mark’s gospel
finishes at Mark 16:8 in the middle of a sentence with the strange phrase, “for
they were afraid of….”? He then
identified at least three possible reasons why this might be: (1) Mark intended
to end thusly; (2) Mark was interrupted and never finished; and (3) the ending
was lost in some way.
He further goes
on to mention that other endings have been added, a shorter version (which first
appears in the late fourth century A.D. and most commentators readily dismiss)
and the longer version of Mark 16:9-20 that appears in most English Bibles
today and which most commentators acknowledge, to quote Pawson, “does reflect
what the early church believed….”?
[THE ANSWER NOW INCLUDES 3-1/2 PAGES OF DETAILS IN THE ATTACHED PDF.]
TOPIC HEADINGS INCLUDE:
The primary argument against Mark 16:9-20
Documentary evidence for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
Structural
evidence for the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20
Structural
evidence for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 with the Gospel of Mark
I’m
sure that anyone who has read this far will appreciate that I will restrict this section to note
that Panin demonstrates that not only was Mark 16:9-20 necessary to complete
Mark’s gospel and end on a note of hope rather than despair, but it is
consistent structurally and gematrically with the verses that precede it.? There is no human explanation for the
incredible and precise fit.
Conclusion
This
answer only lightly touches on evidence regarding the authenticity of Mark
16:9-20, but even from this cursory examination, it would seem apparent that
these 12 verses were in the original but were expurgated from the corrupt
Alexandrian codices (this topic I could prattle on about for hours) that form
the foundation for most modern English versions of the New Testament.
So
that’s where I disagree with David Pawson.?
His reasoning why Mark’s gospel finishes at Mark 16:8
errors in its underlying assumption that Westcott and Hort were correct in promoting
the Alexandrian codices as the “earliest and most reliable” versions of the New
Testament.? One hundred and forty years
after that assumption was made, they are no longer seen as reliable, and three
fragments of Mark (?45, ?88, and ?137) dated to before they
were allegedly written are probably earlier than the codices which cannot trace
their provenance until at least some 1,000 years later.
Thanks for the questions.
Blessings,
Ray
