Free Book of the Month (September): NIVAC

Page 2 of 2 (29 items) < Previous 1 2
This post has 28 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 1854
Robert M. Warren | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Sep 1 2017 10:46 AM

I had the Job, which I had made from a Kindle when they were very inexpensive, but I'll always get the Logos edition when they make me an offer I can't refuse.

Win 10 | Android 9 | Fire OS 5

Posts 3733
BillS | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Sep 1 2017 12:21 PM

Thanks FL & Andre!

Grace & Peace,
Bill


MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
Fire 10HD 64GB 7th Gen

Posts 1578
Kenute P. Curry | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Sep 1 2017 12:58 PM

I was disappointed in the NIVAC on MARK; in that it only covers chapter 16:1-8.What happened to verses 9-20????? Whatever excuse is given, it is still in the Canon of Scripture, and should still be covered.

Posts 621
Dave Thawley | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Sep 1 2017 3:49 PM

Thanks faithlife, what a deal. I've also noted that you have the entire collection at 30% off on dynamic pricing. I've used my birthday gift (thank you for this also) to get the collection of ones I didn't already own. I think this personally is the best free book of the month offer I have seen (and they are all pretty good) so than you and thank you Zondervan for making my day :-) 

https://www.logos.com/product/37365/niv-application-commentary-bundle 

Posts 1358
Edwin Bowden | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Sep 1 2017 4:38 PM

Kenute P. Curry:

I was disappointed in the NIVAC on MARK; in that it only covers chapter 16:1-8.What happened to verses 9-20????? Whatever excuse is given, it is still in the Canon of Scripture, and should still be covered.

https://vyrso.com/product/39293/perspectives-on-the-ending-of-mark  

From the Mark/NIVAC:

    The Conclusion to the Gospel

IN THE EARLIEST and most reliable manuscripts, Mark’s Gospel ends with verse 8. Such an abrupt ending has perplexed readers for centuries. Many argue that Mark would not have left the narrative hanging and must have continued with a fuller picture of what happened next. They point to several problems with this ending. (1) It seems unusual, if not impossible in Greek, to end a paragraph, let alone a book, with the conjunction “for” (ephobounto gar, “for they were afraid”). (2) It seems unusual to end the story with the women paralyzed by fear and failing to carry out what the angel commissioned them to do. (3) It seems peculiar that Mark would not include some account of Jesus’ meeting his disciples in Galilee since the resurrection appearances were a basic element of Christian preaching from the beginning (see 1 Cor. 15:5).
These objections do not carry the verdict, however. The grammar may be thought graceless, like ending an English sentence with a preposition; but Mark is not known for his elegant style, and verse 8 is a complete thought. The shorter and longer endings to Mark have the women informing the disciples about what they have seen, which appears to contradict the statement that “they said nothing to anyone.” As for this final gap in the narrative, Hooker notes that Mark’s method throughout the Gospel has been “to leave his readers to make the crucial step of faith.”13 The restoration of the “scattered disciples” occurs beyond the narrative of the Gospel.
Convincing arguments tell against the longer ending (16:9–20) as the original ending to Mark. The two oldest Greek manuscripts omit it, along with many versions, and early church fathers show no knowledge of its existence. The longer ending’s vocabulary and style differ strikingly from that found in the rest of Mark and are immediately recognizable. The transition between 16:8 and 16:9 is also awkward. In 16:8, the women are the subject. The subject suddenly switches to Jesus in 16:9, when he appears to Mary Magdalene, completely ignoring the other two women. Mary Magdalene is specifically identified as the one from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons (see Luke 8:2), although she had already been introduced in 15:40, 47 and 16:1 without any such description. Why would the fourth mention of Mary Magdalene suddenly introduce this background? It serves as a tip-off that a later scribe, drawing on other traditions, has added this section.
Moreover, all of the material in 16:9–20 appears to be garnered from accounts found in the other three Gospels: the appearance to Mary Magdalene (16:9–11; cf. John 20:14–18); the appearance to two disappointed disciples in the country (Mark 16:12–13; cf. Luke 24:13–35); the commissioning of the disciples (Mark 16:14–16; cf. Matt. 28:16–20); speaking in tongues (Mark 16:17; cf. Acts 2:4–11; 10:46; 19:6); handling snakes (Mark 16:18a; cf. Luke 10:19; Acts 28:3–6); laying on hands (Mark 16:18b; cf. Acts 3:1–10; 5:12–16; 9:12, 17–18; James 5:14–15); the ascension of Jesus (Mark 16:19; cf. Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11). That a later scribe compiled these excerpts from the other Gospels to provide an orthodox and more satisfactory conclusion to Mark’s Gospel is the most likely explanation. Even the longer ending has been subject to tinkering. Sixteen lines of text that describe Jesus’ upbraiding of his disciples and his outlining an eschatological scheme have been appended to 16:14 in one ancient fragment.
The existence of a shorter ending suggests that other scribes tried their hand at tying up the loose ends of what was considered a ragged and inconclusive finale. This text appears in only a handful of later manuscripts. The phrase “the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation” clearly smacks of the vocabulary and style of a later era.
The two main extant endings to Mark testify that some early readers did not appreciate an ending that left everything in the air. One naturally wants to bring a sense of closure to the story and to pad it with something more uplifting and reassuring. Both variants, in my opinion, are examples of a less-skilled hand trying to fix what the Master had not made explicit or had made too explicit, like the later artists who tried to fix Michelangelo’s masterpiece in the Sistine Chapel by painting clothes on naked figures.
Some scholars who judge these surviving endings to the Gospel to be spurious surmise that the Evangelist never completed the Gospel for some reason. Various imaginative explanations have been proposed. Perhaps Mark was martyred before finishing the task. The Gospel’s ending was possibly damaged in some way and lost. A column or two at the end of the scroll could have been accidentally torn off or tattered from frequent use. If it were a codex, one could imagine that the first leaf would have also been damaged. The Gospel of Mark begins no less abruptly than it ends. Perhaps a birth narrative has disappeared as well as the resurrection narrative. If the ending were lost, presumably from constant use, however, it would have been in use long enough for someone to restore the ending from memory or for other copies to exist. Otherwise, the loss must have occurred almost immediately.
Against such speculation, Hooker observes that it is “remarkable … that an accidental break should have occurred at a point where a case can at least be made for arguing that Mark intended to stop.” Many today have discerned literary genius in the sudden ending to the Gospel and appreciate its artistic effect. It is unlikely that the Gospel would fortuitously break off at precisely the right word, and the great textual critic Kurt Aland characterizes attempts to recover the lost ending as fascinating but “will of the wisp.”18 In my opinion, Mark fully intended to end his Gospel with the startling disclosure that the women spoke to no one because they were afraid. If we want to understand Mark, we must grapple with this awkward conclusion no matter how unsatisfying it might be.
The abrupt ending both surprises and creates suspense. Mark may have felt no need to relate resurrection appearances to readers who had heard them so often. Magness argues that it was standard literary practice in the ancient world to allude to well-known events that occurred after those being narrated in a text without actually narrating those events. Peterson makes a distinction between “story time” and “plotted time.”20 The ancient stylist Demetrius advises leaving gaps in narratives: “Some things seem to be more significant when not expressed,” and those omissions “will make an expression more forcible.”
In sum, the ending goads the reader to react. We must assume that the disciples reunite with Jesus in story time, though not in the plotted time of the Gospel; otherwise this Gospel would never have been written. We must now become participants because we are forced to fill in the unnarrated events from the clues Mark has offered thus far. When presented with this ending, we must ask, “What happened? What will happen?” We must also go to Jesus and not only tell about his resurrection but tell the entire story from the beginning.


David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 615–618.

Posts 621
Dave Thawley | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Sep 1 2017 5:54 PM

Thanks for this Edwin, very informative

Posts 1578
Kenute P. Curry | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Sep 1 2017 8:39 PM

I appreciate this Edwin Bowden and your taking the time to post it here in the forum. However, I have read and heard all of this time after time after time from others.

The point I am trying to make is that Mark 16:9-20  is in the Canon of Scripture, and the Holy-Spirit breathed Words of God, so there is nothing spurious about it. It is the authentic Word of God, just as all of Scripture is.

So, when Bible Scholars and Bible Theologians try to explain this in certain ways that they do, I see a lot of conjecture and speculation on their part.

And just for the record; it is not only the NIVAC. I have also seen this in a lot of other Bible Commentaries as well. But all of the Gospel of Mark is the true and authentic Word of God, no matter what any commentary might say. That was and is the point that I am making here. 

Posts 893
Bill Anderson | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Sep 1 2017 9:42 PM

Kenute P. Curry:

I appreciate this Edwin Bowden and your taking the time to post it here in the forum. However, I have read and heard all of this time after time after time from others.

The point I am trying to make is that Mark 16:9-20  is in the Canon of Scripture, and the Holy-Spirit breathed Words of God, so there is nothing spurious about it. It is the authentic Word of God, just as all of Scripture is.

So, when Bible Scholars and Bible Theologians try to explain this in certain ways that they do, I see a lot of conjecture and speculation on their part.

And just for the record; it is not only the NIVAC. I have also seen this in a lot of other Bible Commentaries as well. But all of the Gospel of Mark is the true and authentic Word of God, no matter what any commentary might say. That was and is the point that I am making here. 

Just a friendly reminder that the forums and this thread aren't for arguing or discussing the merits of the longer ending of Mark or any opinion we might hold on this subject.

Posts 3662
Milkman | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Sep 6 2017 8:50 AM

Very nice. Thanks Faith Life!

mm.

mm.

Page 2 of 2 (29 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS