Variants
[1Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.] Mark 16:9 NASB
Now – Forget the word. Pay attention to the little number 1 in front of the word. Notice that this little number indicates “Later mss add vv 9–20.” That means the end of the gospel of Mark is not part of the earliest manuscripts that we possess. In fact, consulting the United Bible Societies standard Greek New Testament shows that dozens of the early manuscripts do not contain the verses from 9 to 20.
You might think this is unusual and surprising, but it’s not. Even a cursory glance at the standard Greek New Testament demonstrates that every page contains footnotes about textual variants for almost every verse. Most of the time these are minor issues like spelling or the use of a different word. Most of the time they are not theologically significant. Let’s assume, for the moment, that the translation you hold in your hand is accurate. We might find out later that a few of these variants make some real difference, but most of those differences are pretty well known among scholars. The point of this investigation is not to look at these differences. It is to point out how dissimilar this kind of textual history is from the transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures. This difference is amazing. In fact, when copies of the Hebrew Scriptures were found in the Qumran caves and compared to the standard Masoretic texts used for virtually all translations of the “Old Testament,” the differences between these copies and the standard texts were almost negligible. In other words, the text was meticulously transmitted over the course of 1000 years with hardly any variation. How strikingly different is this from the transmission of the “New Testament” texts where variations occur on a regular basis!
What does this tell us? First, it demonstrates the enormously high regard for the exactness of the Tanakh. Faithful recopying of the text over more than 1000 years as evidenced by comparison with the Dead Sea scrolls provides assurance that our Tanakh is virtually the same as the one used during the time of the Messiah. We can’t say that about the “New Testament” manuscripts. Yes, we can fairly confidently say that the reconstruction of those manuscripts allows us to recognize where variations occurred, but that isn’t the same as saying that we are absolutely confident that our versions of the apostolic writings is exactly the same as the ones written in the first century.
Second, and more importantly, this investigation demonstrates the need for caution with the Greek text. The last eleven verses of Mark have been used to argue for particular ideas about the relationship between baptism and salvation. Other examples come to mind, like John 8 and Matthew 28. Perhaps we need to rethink the authenticity of such claims. No one need doubt what the Jews read from their Bible in the first century, but apparently there is room for latitude when it comes to the apostolic material.
Topical Index: Mark 16:9-20, textual variants, Qumran
Paul said the spirit of anti-christ (ante, or, first (ahead of) Christ) was already working in his day. Gnosticism and other thought systems were (and are) as popular then as humanism is today, and this had to have been just as big a problem in the oral community as it was in the written. In fact, I think it is a miracle that we have the Bible at all. Having said that, I also think that God is perfectly able to preserve His own Word and we can have confidence in Him, even if we have to carry our saltshakers around with us when it comes to dealing with the words people used.
Regarding the end of Mark, I have seen other reasons for leaving it out that could be construed as being just as bad as leaving it in, depending on your paradigm, that is. As always, and if there is one thing I have learned from you, Skip, it is that the paradigm comes first, and if that paradigm carries within it anything that exalts above, or diminishes Christ, it would have that ante-christ (spelled the Greek way) spirit. It is a simple thing to rearrange the Scripture to suit after that.
I agree is there a possibility that our new testament is only as popular as it is because it is connected to the Old Testament and God is trying to keep the two connected?!
It’s always been approved and correct that healing comes before restoration put these two into play with my statement above until the restoration of all things interesting maybe a bit off track but interesting nonetheless
Interesting take, brother. Healing of fracture IS the restoration, but, we are all fractured, which is why we all need healing before we can function (live) again. We are fractured from our history, from our communities of origin, and from ourselves as well as God. Teshuva restores the ability to reconnect. We need to repent for the historical abuse of the Scriptures and seek to restore a connection to their original form. When we do that then they will be able to be life to us. Bravo, Skip!
Hello Everyone,
Though the text of the Tanakh may well represent the original, some have noted translations such as the NLT and NIV and study Bible commentary notes represent the overall history of Israel in a seeming accusatory posture, rather than add historic facts not to justify but to lend explanation. Case in point Hagai chapter 1 and the 20-year process to build the temple. I find sources such as “Exploring God’s Word” commentary online to be more historically fair to the facts in comparison. Thanks..
David Russell
And just when I thought it was safe to read each Today’s Word…
With all due respect, this is a distortion of the facts. First of all, there is no one definitive Masoretic Text, even accounting for the slight variances. Looking at Wikipedia, for example (go to en_dot_wikipedia_dot_org/wiki/Textual_criticism#Hebrew_Bible), you’ll find a table, and within it you’ll find by Masoretic: “Aleppo Codex, Leningrad Codex and other incomplete mss”.
Under the table is the following explanation [bold added]:
So, as we can see, there are two different texts, the Aleppo and the Leningrad, with one new Bible translated from the former, the other based on the latter, and yet another based on a combination of the two. The very next paragraph under the very next section at Wikipedia reads [bold added]:
Overall, I’d say it’s very consistent (I’ll get to the NT below in a separate comment). However, the text varies from the LXX, which was originally written before the DSS. The Wikipedia entry for “Masoretic Text” reads [bold added]:
So which is really more faithful to the ‘original’ Hebrew Scriptures? – the LXX (which predates all known copies of the MT, as well as the DSS, though only a complete version is found in the 4th c. AD), or the MT (which dates from 10th c. AD, though some portions are remarkable faithful to the DSS and Tanakh “but different from others”). I don’t think we can make a definitive case either way. However, we can say that both the MT and the LXX are remarkably consistent, more so than, e.g., the works of Homer. But is it much more – or any more – consistent than the NT?
For a good read go to start page.com, enter “The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia”
I definitely agree that students should not reference Wikipedia, and no attempt at scholarly work should do same. You may have missed my parenthetical disclaimer in my 2nd comment here (8:27 am) – I had to break the comment into 2 parts due to length. In any case, the basic gist of the quoted portions I deem correct. If you disagree, feel free to point out the errors using another non-Wiki site. But, one could try, e.g., “leningrad codex versus aleppo”, and find there is truth to the claims above.
Honestly, Craig, i was just surprised that YOU used wickedpedia at all. 😉
Hold the presses! I think I detect a variant here! Is “bpw” formerly “bpc”? Assuming so, I’m surprised you’re using all caps. Didn’t I show you how to bold and italicize?
Touche!!! bpw via bcp, actually.
LOOONG STORY!!
but, seriously, what is with you referencing wickedpedia?
Please don’t regard a discussion of textual variants as a dismissal of the apostolic writings. I TRUST in the witnesses of the gospels and the letters of the others. I have no reason to doubt their representation of the accounts, given that it is purposeful history (as is the Tanakh) rather than event history. I only brought up the subject because so often we ASSUME that what we are reading is a completely accurate translation of a single, universally recognized ancient text. Obviously, lots of fragments and lots of copies and lots of intervening centuries make for interesting transmission.
And you can still read “safely.”
Perhaps I was the only one who read this TW in the manner I did. The way I see it, your comparison between the MT and the NT, in that they are “strikingly different”, without providing any reason for this being so (the sheer number of NT manuscripts as compared to the MT-derived ones, e.g.), is one such reason I read it the way I did and made my comments accordingly. Moreover, you juxtapose an “enormously high regard for the exactness of the Tanakh” with “[w]e can’t say that about the ‘New Testament’ manuscripts”, implying the superiority of the Tanakh/MT over the NT. I don’t think the textual evidence supports that, as it seems both are well-preserved, and comparisons in their transmissions and their overall fidelity are like apples to oranges. And, importantly, we simply don’t have “originals” of either to make a comparison.
To insinuate that the NT is not to be trusted as compared to the MT is a distortion, which I’ll presume is based on ignorance of the associated issues. For example, “Most of the time [NT variances] are not theologically significant.” There is only one time in which the case can be made for theological significance, and that’s in Mark 16:9-20, a text that’s almost universally regarded as a later edition. With this in mind I’ll agree that Mark 16:9-20 should not be used to establish any sort of doctrine. In general, it’s not a good idea to establish any doctrine on any one Scripture (snake handling, anyone?), especially one that is doubtful to be original. (This “long ending” of Mark apparently originates from the early to mid-2nd century AD. [I even wrote about this on my own blog – if anyone wishes to read it; search “crosswise long ending mark”.])
Also written: “How strikingly different is this from the transmission of the ‘New Testament’ texts where variations occur on a regular basis!” But here’s the crux of the issue: there are more variants in the NT as compared to the MT (though which one?), and because there are many more copies in existence, the likelihood of scribal error is increased. Yet, like the MT, there are no doctrines (leaving out the long ending of Mark) materially affected by these variances. From Wikipedia (I’m referencing this site because anyone can verify the quotes):
The three text-types (think of the Aleppo and the Leningrad of the MT) are dated to within 1-3 centuries of original transmission (Alexandrian), 2-8 centuries (Western), and 4-15 centuries (Byzantine). In other words, we have extant copies that were written only one century after original transmission in one text-type!
The portion bolded above “The sheer number of witnesses presents unique difficulties” is sometimes referred to as “an embarrassment of riches”. It has been said that even if there were no extant NT manuscripts and all current translations destroyed, the entire NT could be reconstructed using the other language versions from antiquity.
Craig, I wanted to take a minute to thank you for your astute scholarship, something I sorely lack. I feel educated every time I read you! I am going to go check out what you have to say about Mark, too.
I’m not sure exactly how astute my scholarship, and I sure wouldn’t say you “sorely lack” scholarship – at least not as I read your posts.
In your reading of my post about the “long ending” of Mark, be sure to check out the comments section for one by James Snapp, Jr., for an opposing viewpoint, one advocating for the originality of it. If you click on his hyperlinked name, you’ll see his work on the subject. His work was referenced in a recent book by Nicholas P Lunn, who argues for its originality. I have the book, and while it makes some points, I don’t find it persuasive. The very last comment on that post references a brief review by Larry Hurtado on his blog, with a few comments by Snapp in response.
One of the resources I use to balance out the varients is the Aramaic. Andrew Gabriel Roth has an excellent translation (along with some thought provoking commentary)
http//onefaithonepeopleministries.com/?page_id=987
The question as to the integrity of the New Testament bothered me for a number of years. The angst that it caused me was considerable. I struggled to reconcile the Tanakh with the Greek Scriptures to no avail. I had been taught from early on, being raised in the Catholic Church, that Jesus was God… In fact the creator… And that the creator was Jesus, so when I finally began reading and studying the Tanakh I could not reconcile the two.
Ihad to stop reading the New Testament, and for the most part stop listening to the arguments that conflicted me. Once I stopped reading the New Testament and the teaching that went along with it, I began to recognize a peace.
The YHVH of the Old Testament claims time and time again that he is the only God! I believe him, I trust in him and him only. I cannot worship another, and if Jesus/Yeshua is not God, then I cannot worship him! If he is a messiah , and only time will tell, then he, a man, is not to be worshiped.
love d
We live in world of suspicion and sensationalism. The more I have studied the Gospels, the more I have come to deeply appreciate the local color and surroundings of these ancient writings. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are a glorious story and dramatic presentation of the Father and the Son. “For the Father so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son”. . .
I love the Tanakh, and I love the Apostolic Writings. I believe they both are a faithful representation of our Father’s love for His world (Jew and Gentile) and His Son.
I believe there is an assault to discredit the witness of the Gospels. I believe the main elements found in them concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Messiah can be trusted to build your life upon. They are a solid foundation in a world of sinking sand. The more I experience the Father’s love, the more I am convinced of their stories. Our Father’s love for His world cannot be stopped! He will not leave us alone! He wants to be with us! He wants to bless us!
The Father’s whispers of love can be heard profoundly in the person of Messiah. Do you hear His whispers?
My papa finished his journey in our Father’s world about 4 weeks ago. He fell traumatizing his skull and brain, and through the ongoing stress of his accident, he had a severe stroke. He never regained consciousness. It was an incredible journey. The realization of the Father’s love through this journey has been immeasurable. I am convinced that the Father’s speaking and what I perceive He is doing around me are the only things worthy to build upon and live from. Everything else is a sham and built upon the shifting sand of this perverse, wicked, adulterous, and broken generation. Our castles made in this sand will not stand. He is the only ONE who is able through Messiah to deliver us from this present evil age.
I have been captivated by the love of the Father for His Son, and the Son’s burning desire to honor and faithfully obey and represent the Father. I have been brought into the all consuming fire of the Father’s love for His world and His Son. In this holy embrace, I want the Father to burn away all the fluff and stuff of my small and vaporous existence, and all I want to remain is the large and eternal image of His Son. This is the cry of my existence!
Brian our condolences for your loses. May YHVH give you the fullness of the wisdom your father taught you so that his memory may be witnessed in your walk of faith.
No I know you not, but do know how the void left by the passing of both parents affects every part of ones life,..
Seeker, thank you for your kind words.
This quote included in Craig’s comments reminds me once again that perhaps the most important concept Skip has tried to teach us is the crucial importance of the English word, paradigm.
#8 Comment By Craig On April 5, 2017 @ 8:27 am
“It has been said that even if there were no extant NT manuscripts and all current translations destroyed, the entire NT could be reconstructed using the other language versions from antiquity.”
Patricia let us also remember with what you said that the apostolic teachings agree with Old Testament traditions. Even to say that the restoration of the 5 Ministries Within New Testament come from the founding fathers. And is crucial for positive spiritual growth. It is all about Unity sound Biblical teaching old and new Covenant teachings. Balance comes from Unity. Support comes from agreement. Without proper balance in unity one would grow crooked or twisted. Interesting use of words. How would we prune correctly without understanding not only the process but the conditions of the process. I have often encourage people to understand that everything in the New Testament came from the Old Testament the the strength of standing on two legs instead of one becomes evident.
In agreement that the NT must come in alignment with the Tanach. My observation was only that another NT Translation would most likely simply reflect one more paradigm.
Because of TW, I did a little of my own looking into this portion of Mark (16:9-20). I didn’t realize that scholars do not know (or agree) on who actually wrote Mark. If you do Dr. Moen, I’d like to know. And this portion was added in the 2nd century. Wha? By whom? It is a passage that my own parents point to when saying why we should worship on Sunday. I just seems interesting that this portion…that says Yeshua was raised on Sunday was added what, 50 or 100 years after Mark was written? I’m new to this digging and could have gone around the bend on this!
Hello Heather
Even if Mark 16:9 is taken as legitimate, it does not state that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday, in fact, it does not even state it was the first day of the week.
First, the word translated “week” is Strong’s G4521, sabbaton. It is found 68 times in the King James AV, but even in this version, it is translated “Sabbath” 59 times, and “week” only 9 times. Clearly, they knew what the word meant but translated it “week” when it suited them, especially in the verses regarding the resurrection. Such was their paradigm.
Matt 28:1 is interesting as the word appears twice in the same verse but once it is translated “Sabbath” and once “week”.
Second, the word “day” does not appear in the original and no one disputes that. Even the King James puts that in italics to let the reader know they have added it. So, that makes the verse read something more like, as the (Modern) MKJV concedes,
And when (Jesus) had risen early the first (day) of the Sabbath,
This is nothing new, the more literal translations have long translated it thus, but the question is, what is the first of the Sabbath? Luke 6:1 gives a clue,
KJV, And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first
High holy days, e.g. Passover, are also called Sabbaths, and as they can occur on any day of the week, there can be two Sabbaths in one week. So, one is the first and the other is the second. (And this leads to all the theories as to which day of the week, other than Friday, Christ was crucified.)
So nothing, even in this questionable verse, changes the Sabbath from one day to another.
Thank you Dan for your reply! I wasn’t meaning that in the original language, it says He was raised on Sunday/first day of the week. I mean that the Bible translations that people read…people who don’t know Greek/Hebrew and just trust what they read….ASV: Mark 16:9 “Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week,” NKJV:”Mark 16:9 Now when He rose early on the first day of the week,” Many people I know…..the way I was raised….says we worship on Sunday because He was raised on a Sunday. Now that I’ve dug on my own, this is the only place I see that “translated” and it’s a portion that was added after the original.
The Sunday justification does not appear before about 350 CE, as a decision of the Catholic Church. In Hebrew, the FIRST day of the week begins at sundown on Saturday, so there is NO necessity to conclude the resurrection was on Sunday.
While Yom Shabbat (Saturday) is the seventh day of the week, and Yom Rishon (Sunday) is the first, I thought the “third hour” (Mark 15:25) meant about 9AM, which would mean the new day would begin at 6AM. Doesn’t this mean that the weekly Shabbat actually begins at dusk on Yom Shishi (Friday), and finishes at nightfall on Yom Shabbat? And wouldn’t that also mean that Yom Shabbat technically continues until just before daylight (roughly 6AM – depending on season of the year), at which point Yom Rishon (Sunday) begins?
I had that impression, too, not knowing any better!
I still don’t know any better! I mean, seriously, I’m confused on this. If Jesus was crucified on “the third hour”, would this be about midnight (dusk + 3 hours)? Or, would it be 9AM (daylight + 3 hours)?
Could not have been midnight, because of the other particulars. Get Him off the cross before Shabbat sunset. The darkness for three hours would have made no sense at night, either, etc.
I agree that “the third hour” could not have been midnight. This is why I’m having difficulty with the idea that a new day begins at dusk.
That ‘third hour’ could have been referring to the double day calculation that would have been in use, then. For example, there was the Jewish calendar used during the original diaspora, but also the Persian one (month of Adar) referred to in Esther. I can only surmise that, as the Romans were sun worshipers, their day calculation would begin at sunrise, and the common vernacular would use this terminology also. Sunrise in that latitude at that time of year would have been about 6 am, would it not?
I’m totally unfamiliar with the dual use of the calendar, so I’ll defer to you here (I’ll have to check out Esther later on this, for my own benefit). I do think I’ll just have to look at the “third hour” and “sixth hour” statements as totally separate from “day”, i.e., as relative to the start of the day. Clearly, they are in reference to the rising of the sun, which may or may not have to do with a reference to sun worship. I state the latter, as even John, a Jewish writer (presumably the author of the Gospel of John, though some contest authorship), mentions the “sixth hour” (John 19:14), though, as you say, the terminology could have made it into common vernacular.
We need a certain Skip on this who, of course, would be familiar with what terms and words meant to people living in the first century. Or at least refer us to references that are.
I’ve read that the Romans had 12 hours of daytime and 12 hours of night, so just like us, they had two each, third hours. One at about our 9 a.m. and one at about 8 p.m. in December, and say about our 8 a.m. and 11 p.m. in June (in Israel). To fit 12 hours into each period of day and night, their hours varied between our 45 and 75 minutes depending on the season. So, when we read, “the third hour” we have to take into account the context to determine if it is day time or night time. (And here, the “watches of the night” may come into play.)
Some Roman historians maintain that the hours of the day and the night were always counted from dusk, or dawn. Even Greek culture had Hebrew influences.
Good subject for somebody to study.
That’s interesting. I never would have thought that.
Dan,
I found some info on this, confirming what you wrote. It’s in Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001). Noting the discrepancy between Mark (15:25 “third hour”) and John (19:14 “sixth hour”) regarding the hour of Christ’s crucifixion, the author writes:
To understand perhaps more clearly why the KJV (and other translations) use “week” for sabbaton at times, the context of Luke 18:12 provides instruction. Here it is in the Greek, followed by a ‘literal’ translation:
nēsteuō dis tou sabbatou
I-fast twice of the Sabbath.
Here sabbaton is in the genitive case (possessive), so placing “of” in front denotes possession. Would we think this particular Pharisee fasted twice each Sabbath, i.e., two times on one day every week? Of course not. Obviously, the term can mean “week” in some contexts.
Here’s the verse in Mark 16:9, which uses the same genitive form of sabbaton:
Anastas de prōi prōtȩ̄ sabbatou
Rising-up now early first of-Sabbath.
In better English: Now, rising early on the first [day] of the week.
Please know that I believe the Sabbath has not been “moved.” I’m just saying that people I know, my parents, pastors believe it says that Yeshu rose on a Sunday. In reality none of the Gospels seem to say exactly when, just when the women showed up….except in this part of Mark. Think “regular trusting Christian Believer”.
Dan
Thank you for sharing this understanding it changes a lot of perceptions on days mentioned in the bible and helps clarify that Sabbath could also refer to a holy feast day.
I am so sorry for all these little comments. I’m a stay-at-home-mom…I’m reading, processing, replying in between housework, lunch, kid stuff, etc. Thank you for letting me know that the original Mark 16:9-20 was not written to say/imply that Yeshua rose on Sunday. However, it is now being translated that way. I wonder when that started. It doesn’t surprise me. As I’ve gotten to know more about early “catholic” church leadership and their desire to make the “day of rest and worship” be on Sunday and move more away from Hebrew roots. In many people’s lives that has been accomplished. Because of modern translations, many people believe Yeshua rose on Sunday and that’s why we worship and rest on a Sunday. Through Dr. Moen, and others, my husband and I have chosen to observe the true and blessed Sabbath. Thanks again!
Is it likely that Jesus would have been raised on the Sabbath OR more likely that he rested that entire day and arose early on the first day of the week after Sabbath finished, perhaps as early as Saturday evening?
I dunno. John 5:16-17 indicates that not only did Jesus heal a man on the Sabbath, but He made the claim that He is always working – just like His Father – so, I don’t think we can use that rationale as a factor. It seems it’s as likely to be one day as to another.
This discussion would be greatly advanced by listening to Bob Gorelik’s comments on the day/time issue. He spoke to the group in Israel. It is available in both video and audio format on the web site.