Provides a forum for EMS agencies to discuss issues, share information, and work cooperatively to improve the delivery of prehospital care.

Bureau within the Department of Public Safety that is responsible for the facilitation, coordination, integration and regulation of activities concerning emergency medical services.

A fire and emergency world wide information resource. Apparatus and equipment manufacturer listings, and emergency services related products provided.

Serves Penobscot, Piscataquis, Hancock and Washington Counties by coordinating policies, credentials and educational programs for paramedics, EMT's and rescue services.

A AEV ambulance dealer serving the northeast, specializing in emergency vehicles, parts, and accessories.

In article <127.04.10.05.678068000@srcbs.org>, gpatton@bayou.com says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> In article <125.27.17.05.596300000@srcbs.org>, gpatton@bayou.com
>says...

[snip]

>There are many old manuscripts, of the Gospel of Mark, that end at Mark
>16:8. There are many that have the long ending found in the KJV and
>other versions. There are some old "copies" of the gospel that had
>verses after 16:8 that are not found in the KJV.

All true. That is why I did not claim the Longer Ending is original. But as I
also said, that is no excuse for rejecting it.

> There are others that
>contain other variations. When the church established the canon of the
>NT, they did not state which of the many endings of Mark should be
>used.

But what "establishing the canon" are you referring to? If to the Council of
Trent, then you are wrong: they specified specifically using the Vulgate, which
included the Longer Ending.

If you are referring to some 4th century "establishing the canon", then whether
or not your assertion is correct still depends on _which_ "establishing" you are
referring to. For some did, and some did not attempt to establish the text. See
http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm for some examples.


> I assume they were canonizing the original Gospel of Mark.

But WHY do you make this assumption? By the fourth century, the Longer Ending
was already widespread. In fact, _most_ of the NT already looked very much like
the Byzantine Text. Yet there is no record of a dispute over whether or not to
include the Longer Ending in the Canon.

> Your
>study leads you to think certain old manuscripts illustrate the
>original, where I think other ancient manuscripts (examples: Alpha and
>B) reflect the original ending of the Gospel of Mark. I understand
>that many fine Christians are like you and think the long ending was a
>part of the original Gospel of Mark.

But this is not what I said, not in the post you are replying to.

> That is quite OK with me. My
>study leads me to think the several endings after Mark 16:8 were added
>by an author other than the one who wrote the original gospel.

A conclusion that should not be accepted, unless you believe the Gospel left
Mark's desk unfinished. It is simply not consistent with Mark's obvious style
and intent to abruptly stop at 16:8.

That is why I said, in another post long ago, that I think somebody took it off
his desk before he was finished and published it. Only later did somebody
(possibly not Mark himself) add an ending, and publish that. Then somebody else
did similarly, adding _another_ ending.

This is, of course, all somewhat speculativ