Jump to content

Mark 16:9


rstrats
 Share

Recommended Posts

A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.

 

I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello rstrats,

 

Shabbat, according to the Tanakh, has always been from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday ("And there was evening, and there was morning; one day."), so I'm not sure what this passage in Mark has to do with Shabbat.

 

NORM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the author, but the 'CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - SECOND EDITION' states that Jesus rose on the 8th, or 1st day. I don't know if they get that from Mark 16:9 or from the other verses that are taken to mean that (although they don't specifically say that).

 

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a3.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point about there not being any important doctrines in Mark 16 is a red herring that's irrelevant to the basic point. Either the bible is inerrant or it isn't. You can't say the bible has no errors and contradictions and then admit there's an error in Mark 16 but it's not important anyway so it's still inerrant. Compare the ending to Mark 16 to the story of Jesus and the woman in adultery which is also not found in the earliest manuscripts of John. That passage doesn't contain any "important" doctrines in it either and yet if that passage isn't in the earliest manuscripts of John, then it means it likely never happened historically and was a later development. If it never happened historically, then the biblical authors can't be said to be inerrant for making up a story about Jesus that never existed in the original version. It's clear by the fact they added it on later that the authors of the bible didn't see themselves as inerrant and saw themselves as free to add onto the texts whatever stories they happened to like or what fit their theological agenda. Christian apologists for centuries defended these passages as historically accurate and most people in the pews still think they're historically true so you can't say they're not important when whether or not they're true would change people's perspective of what did happen in the life of Jesus. Christian apologists have only started using this "not important" line of defense because the evidence of the corruption of the biblical manuscripts has become so obvious that even fundamentalists can't keep denying it.

Edited by Neon Genesis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my memory serves, I read somewhere that the Sabbath changed from the 7th day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday) when the Christian Worshipers merged the Sun Worshipers several hundred years after Jesus died.

 

steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the change had something to do with the breakup of the Jesus movement and the Jewish congregations. The newly independent 'Christians' wanted to differentiate themselves from Judaism in a variety of ways. (Or maybe, I am just dreaming this up)

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, when I converted to Judaism, it was explained to me this way:

 

The Christian Bible was originally an attempt at a "Jesus Talmud." At first, this was tolerated and even encouraged because it gave the younger Jews some passion for the faith. They saw Jesus as another reformer such as Rabbi Hillel a century earlier.

 

As the Jesus story gradually became infused with Hellenistic philosophy, it deviated more and more from the fundamentals of the faith (such as monotheism and the role of the priesthood and personal responsibility - keeping "kosher").

 

Finally, when Jesus was transformed into a deity on a par with G-d, it was the last straw - the reformers went too far. That G-d was one, and not made of flesh and blood was just too central to the faith.

 

Judaism has always been a Lunar-based faith. The timing of the months is oriented toward the new moon cycle - this is why the Jewish calendar is different from the Christian calendar. The early Christians consciously chose to emulate the customs and take possession of the holidays originally claimed by sun worshipers in order to, it was explained, distance themselves from the increasingly hostile Jewish leadership in Rome.

 

Perhaps the move from the traditional timing of Shabbat was another thumbing of the nose at the Jewish faith.

 

NORM

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I read in a recent book that Constantine, who was a Sun worshipper before he "converted", preferred Sunday as his day of worship, so he made it happen. No one contradicted Constantine and lived to tell about it. I suspect that anti-semitism had something to do with it.

Christianity definitely became a gentile "thing" in the 4th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper's Bible Dictionary under the definition of Sabbath pg 889 states:

 

In the earliest Christian community, observance of Sabbath regulations fell into disuse among Christians of Jewish descent, principally because Jesus himself had been lax in his obedience to them (e.g., Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 3:1-5; Luke 13:10-17; John 5:1-10) even though he continued to take part in synagogue services held on the Sabbath (e.g., Luke 4:16). Jesus’ claim to lordship over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) was an important element in the hostility he aroused in those who felt that Sabbath traditions were incumbent on all Jews (e.g., Mark 3:6; John 5:18). Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath, coupled with the tradition that his resurrection occurred on the first day of the week (Sunday; cf. Matt. 28:1), meant that Sunday rather than the Sabbath (Saturday) became the chief liturgical day for Christians.

 

 

Achtemeier, Paul J. ; Harper & Row, Publishers ; Society of Biblical Literature: Harper's Bible Dictionary. 1st ed. San Francisco : Harper & Row, 1985, S. 889

Edited by Vridar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vidar,

 

re: "... the tradition that his resurrection occurred on the first day of the week (Sunday; cf. Matt. 28:1)..."

 

I'm afraid I don't see where Matthew 28:1 says that the resurrection took place on the first of the week. What do you have in mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Inerrancy is at odds with sincerity. We would need to interview Paul if he wanted his letters to be thought of as inerrant or inspired. In the jewish book of Proverbs, the words of the wise were seen as riddles. The bible is a book of original riddles that promise truth. But we don't know fully how it will turn out if the "mystery of God is accomplished" (Revelation).

 

The sabbath controversy is a sign of human lameness. We could have two holy days, and work less, but the jews were afraid of their sabbath, and the christians were afraid of their sunday. So Solomon said he should be given a sword. And both mothers were not loving the peasant babies.

Edited by skyseeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service