Talk:John ending

Virtually everyone agrees that the Mark ending was a later addition?

Does that include the Bible publishers and the creators of the lectionaries for Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.? Conservative (talk) 15:55, January 12, 2024 (EST)

Yes, it does include them. The highly respected ESV translation, for example, separates with "[[" and "]]" the later-added ending of Mark 16:9-20 . The ESV and virtually every other modern translation also points out that the earliest manuscrupts do not include this new ending.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:06, January 12, 2024 (EST)

It's a probabalistic matter. Various Bibles include the verses with notes about the earliest manuscripts. Whether or not the verses are Scripture nobody can say for sure. Conservative (talk) 18:11, January 12, 2024 (EST)

There are excellent reasons for including the Mark passages in question: Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel?. So one can't be dogmatic about them not being Scripture. Conservative (talk) 22:17, January 12, 2024 (EST)

There is fascinating info in your link, such as its mention of a possible disrepancy between Mark 16:9 and Matthew 28:1 as to the timing of the first visit to the tomb. But overall your link's analysis is incomplete, as explained in footnote 1 of Mark ending here:

Renowned scholar Bruce Metzger explained that Clement of Alexandria and Origen in the early third century show no knowledge of the existence of these verses 9-20; Eusebius and Jerome confirm that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. See Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d ed. Hendrickson Publishers, 2005). Also, the style of Greek is not Mark's, and the doubtful addition appears to copy closing sections of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John.

--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:35, January 13, 2024 (EST)

Please read this important essay by C.S. Lewis as it will be very eye opening: C.S. LEWIS ON BIBLICAL CRITICISM. Conservative (talk) 07:58, January 14, 2024 (EST)