{
    "schema": "cbrc-public-record-export/1",
    "generated_at": "2026-10-17T06:30:18+00:00",
    "count": 2,
    "context": {
        "q": "",
        "type": "",
        "status": "",
        "certainty": "",
        "language": "",
        "topic": "",
        "book": "mark",
        "century": "",
        "passage": "Mark 16:20",
        "review": "",
        "verification": "",
        "related_to": "",
        "sort": "updated_desc",
        "page": 1,
        "per_page": 24
    },
    "items": [
        {
            "record_id": "VAR-2059",
            "post_type": "cb_variant",
            "record_type": "Variant",
            "title": "Mark 16:15–18 — The Great Commission, Baptism, Belief, and the Promised Signs",
            "slug": "mark-16-15-18-the-great-commission-baptism-belief-and-the-promised-signs",
            "excerpt": "The commission joins worldwide preaching, belief, baptism, and apostolic signs. Its warnings must be read grammatically and canonically, not turned into mechanical baptismal salvation or ritual snake handling.",
            "url": "https://confessionalbibliology.com/research/variants/mark-16-15-18-the-great-commission-baptism-belief-and-the-promised-signs/",
            "status": "Preliminary",
            "certainty": "",
            "verification_level": "Passage, principal readings, and stated editorial comparison checked against Scrivener’s received Greek text and the SBLGNT apparatus; exhaustive manuscript collation remains open. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.",
            "review_level": "Level B — Editorial synthesis",
            "last_revised": "2026-07-22",
            "modified_gmt": "2026-07-23T00:54:11+00:00"
        },
        {
            "record_id": "VAR-2053",
            "post_type": "cb_variant",
            "record_type": "Variant",
            "title": "Mark 16:9–20 III — Lectionaries, Eusebian Sections, and Ecclesiastical Reception",
            "slug": "mark-16-9-20-lectionaries-eusebian-sections-and-ecclesiastical-reception",
            "excerpt": "Lectionaries read portions of the ending at Easter and Ascension, while early Eusebian section systems often stop at verse 8. These are different kinds of evidence and should not be forced into one verdict.",
            "url": "https://confessionalbibliology.com/research/variants/mark-16-9-20-lectionaries-eusebian-sections-and-ecclesiastical-reception/",
            "status": "Preliminary",
            "certainty": "",
            "verification_level": "Burgon’s lectionary argument and the absence of standard Eusebian sections after Mark 16:8 are treated as distinct evidence. His liturgical-endpoint account is explicitly classified as hypothesis. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.",
            "review_level": "Level B — Editorial synthesis",
            "last_revised": "2026-07-22",
            "modified_gmt": "2026-07-23T00:54:10+00:00"
        }
    ]
}