MARK 16:9-20 To Be or Not To be Scripture

[Chopper]

Some ancient manuscripts of Marks Gospel contain these verses and others do not, which presents a puzzle for all of us. This longer ending is missing from various old & reliable manuscripts, especially the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus says Hans F. Bayer, PhD. as well as numerous early Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts. Early church fathers (Origen & Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius & Jerome) also believe that vs 9-20 are missing in most early manuscripts. On the other hand, says Dr. Bayer, some early and many later manuscripts such as A, C, & D contain these verses. Many other church fathers such as Irenaeus included these verses. The later churches to modern state that these verses should be considered with caution. We might not want to build doctrine on them....hmmmm, I wonder?

 

[reba]

Wow all those opinions and there didn't even have a forum :sword

 

[Chopper]

Wow all those opinions and there didn't even have a forum :sword

If they did, it was not in the early manuscripts!

 

[reba]

Do i see a Baptist v. Pentecostal battle forming ? The only church this pentecostal girl ever formally belonged to was Baptist... :angel

 

[jasoncran]

hmm the early debate on the trinity by the nicean council was considered a non salvinic matter by the eastern church and the rcc then didn't call them heretics. hmmm.

 

[Chopper]

Do i see a Baptist v. Pentecostal battle forming ? The only church this pentecostal girl ever formally belonged to was Baptist... :angel

I'm with you, that's why they call me a Bapticostal.

 

[Chopper]

hmm the early debate on the trinity by the nicean council was considered a non salvinic matter by the eastern church and the rcc then didn't call them heretics. hmmm.

o_O

 

[jasoncran]

its a bit silly at times these trinity debates. that is what I was mentioning it. I do wonder if it was the same with mark. I don't know

 

[reba]

Football days are noticeably quiet here

 

[Sinthesis]

I'm with you, that's why they call me a Bapticostal.

That's better than being called a Pentist,,, probably.

 

[jasoncran]

well we could have a roman pentist.

 

[Chopper]

Football days are noticeably quiet here

That's what lap tops are for.:

 

[By Grace]

Some ancient manuscripts of Marks Gospel contain these verses and others do not, which presents a puzzle for all of us. This longer ending is missing from various old & reliable manuscripts, especially the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus says Hans F. Bayer, PhD. as well as numerous early Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts. Early church fathers (Origen & Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius & Jerome) also believe that vs 9-20 are missing in most early manuscripts. On the other hand, says Dr. Bayer, some early and many later manuscripts such as A, C, & D contain these verses. Many other church fathers such as Irenaeus included these verses. The later churches to modern state that these verses should be considered with caution. We might not want to build doctrine on them....hmmmm, I wonder?

Knowing the back story helps

Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. Below are some excerpts from various scholarly sources that conclude that the verses are a later addition.

Nevertheless, some scholars have not been impressed with the evidence against these verses, and have maintained that they are original. These scholars have pointed out that the witnesses which bring the verses into question are few, and that the verses are quoted by church Fathers very early, even in the second century.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
​

See this, also

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel.

Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9-20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.
​

My opinion is that since there is nothing in those verses that is contradicted in other parts of the Bible-for example the handling of snakes COULD be a reference to what happened to Paul when he was bit by a snake, and expected to die (See Acts 28 for the details), then it is not contrary to Scripture. Since that is the case, then what is in that section should be regarded as true, but also taken with a large grain of salt. In other words, I would not try to audition for the Discovery TV show "Snake Salvation" (NEVER SAW IT, NEVER WILL).

It is not wrong to quote from it, nor is it wrong to emulate some of it, but personally I draw the line at playing with rattlers. To quote the world famous anthropologist, Dr. Indiana Jones, "Snakes. Ugh."

 

[Chopper]

Knowing the back story helps

Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. Below are some excerpts from various scholarly sources that conclude that the verses are a later addition.

Nevertheless, some scholars have not been impressed with the evidence against these verses, and have maintained that they are original. These scholars have pointed out that the witnesses which bring the verses into question are few, and that the verses are quoted by church Fathers very early, even in the second century.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
​

See this, also

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel.

Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9-20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.
​

My opinion is that since there is nothing in those verses that is contradicted in other parts of the Bible-for example the handling of snakes COULD be a reference to what happened to Paul when he was bit by a snake, and expected to die (See Acts 28 for the details), then it is not contrary to Scripture. Since that is the case, then what is in that section should be regarded as true, but also taken with a large grain of salt. In other words, I would not try to audition for the Discovery TV show "Snake Salvation" (NEVER SAW IT, NEVER WILL).

It is not wrong to quote from it, nor is it wrong to emulate some of it, but personally I draw the line at playing with rattlers. To quote the world famous anthropologist, Dr. Indiana Jones, "Snakes. Ugh."

Thank you for your addition. I appreciate your research and time.