nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

New American Commentary (NAC) Mark - Missing text?

Mattillo

I was reading through NAC's Mark text and when I got to the end I noticed the appendix. All my appendix shows is the bible text of verses 9-20 of Chapter 16 but it doesn't offer any commentary on these verses. Is the logos version missing this text or does the NAC Mark not make any comment on these? It seems odd to me that they would put an appendix in there with only the bible text and nothing else.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Doc B

All my appendix shows is the bible text of verses 9-20 of Chapter 16 but it doesn't offer any commentary on these verses.

Mine ends the same way as yours. I don't have a paper copy to which I can compare.

Donnie Hale

It seems odd to me that they would put an appendix in there with only the bible text and nothing else.

That's the disputed ending of Mark, right? The name of the appendix (see the ToC) implies that it might be just translation text.

Donnie

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/777446#Comment_777446

It seems odd to me that they would put an appendix in there with only the bible text and nothing else.

That's the disputed ending of Mark, right? The name of the appendix (see the ToC) implies that it might be just translation text.

Donnie

Correct but some commentaries will touch on it and some don't. It just seems odd that the NAC would put the bible text in there with nothing else. You would think there would be something in there talking about it but I wouldn't know as I don't have a paper version

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/777435#Comment_777435

I do not have a paper copy either only my copy in WS, but since the author is adamant that 16:8 is the actual ending, commenting on the additionally ending is pointless. I have seen this many times. Much of the church has accepted the ending and RCC affirm that while it is not formally part of mark it is scripture [ Here for example is the note from the NAB translation: This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Lk 24 and Jn 20. The Freer Logion: Found after Mk 16:14 in a fourth-fifth century manuscript preserved in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, this ending was known to Jerome in the fourth century. It reads: “And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things dominated by the spirits [or, does not allow the unclean things dominated by the spirits to grasp the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now.’ They spoke to Christ. And Christ responded to them, ‘The limit of the years of Satan’s power is completed, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who sinned I was handed over to death, that they might return to the truth and no longer sin, in order that they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible heavenly glory of righteousness. But….’”].

I remember seeing a treatment on it citing the passages of the new testament that could be drawn former to compose it. Although the snakes could be a reference to Paul in Acts, drinking anything deadly thing has no basis in the NT besides this.

And if they drink any deadly thing.—This expresses symbolically the restoration of life to such a degree as to be actually inviolable. De Wette thinks that the apocryphal story of John having, without injury, drunk a poisoned cup, and the similar story regarding Barnabas, related by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3:39, gave origin to this passage. Meyer has good reasons for opposing this view; but he is somewhat inconsistent, since he considers this section to be an apocryphal addition. The remark has more force, that the custom of condemning a criminal to drink a cup of poison suggested the idea. And why should this custom not have occurred to Christ? yea, why may He not have thought of the condemnation of Socrates, and then have declared, “The poisoned cup shall not harm My people;” primarily, of course, in a symbolic sense (just as the cup of hemlock hurt not the soul of Socrates)? But also in a typical sense the life of believers should grow more and more able to overcome all injurious influences, and often literally to overcome these influences in a miraculous manner.

John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, and William G. T. Shedd, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Mark (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 162.

-Dan

Kenute P. Curry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/777455#Comment_777455

Mine is also the same, but it does seem to me that is how the NAC ended the Gospel of Mark. Most Bible Commentaries do have something to say about it; this is the first Bible Commentary that I have seen that has ended the Gospel of Mark very blunt like this with the Biblical Text of 16:9-20. Seems very strange to me, but then again, I do not have a HARDBACK COPY to compare it with.

Paul Caneparo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/777479#Comment_777479

Reading the commentary on verse 8 seems to make clear why there isn't any commentary beyond.