Mark 16:9-20... what do you think of this.

[sk0rpi0n]

Biblegateway is a christian website giving many translations of every book of the bible with just a click.

However, read the note on top of the page showing Mark 16:9-20

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31

It says -
The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.

Is it true? If the most early manuscripts did not have Mark 16:9-20, then how did it end up there?

What are your comments on this?

 

[ProphetMark]

It has a note to that effect in the New International version too.
I don't know how it ended up there though.

 

[Gabe]

I found this on the net: Mark 16:9-20

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. To represent this point of view we give below a long excerpt from F.H.A. Scrivener, together with its footnotes.

and the closing of F.H.A. Scrivener's defence:

....We emphatically deny that such wild surmises are called for by the state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of ×ÂB. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but against their verdict we can appeal to a vast body of ecclesiastical evidence reaching back to the earlier part of the second century; to nearly all the versions; and to all extant manuscripts excepting two, of which one is doubtful. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those who are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record originally delivered to the Church.

 

[duval]

what really matters is that the teaching is found elsewhere in the NT

 

[wavy]

It's not authentic. Gabriel's excerpt is pathetic (due to no fault of his own, of course).

These are the reasons most textual critics reject the passage:

1) External evidence:

a) It's lacking in our earliest and generally more reliable mss. (codices B and Aleph).

b) There are other competing alternative endings (though admittedly less attested).

2) Internal evidence:

a) Intrinsic probability: The stylistic and vocabularied features of the passage are characteristically non-Markan. It also seems to combine traditions from the other gopsels.

b) Transcriptional probability: There is no real plausible reason why the ending should have been dropped, but every reason why it should be added.

The fact that most mss. contain the 'longer ending', as it's called, is consistent with this passage as a later addendum. It is understandable why transcribers would opt for a more complete gospel than to carry on an ostensibly incomplete text, so once it was added we would predict that it would dominate our later ms. evidence. The fact that it was quoted as early as the 2nd century only signifies that it was appended early, and is not real evidence for the passage's authenticity since it is predicted by the overwhelming evidence for the theory that is is not authentic.

Those arguing for the ending are few and usually motivated by some theological bias.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Cornelius]

It is in the Numeric translation, which means its numeric pattern is consistent with that of the rest of the Bible.Therefor its authentic .

 

[samuel]

Erasmus started to exclude these verses, a friend challenged him to do a little more research. He found that in reality more of the manuscripts, and evidence from quotes in old Church records supported them.

As far as the other two, "better manuscripts". If you want to allow the thief to sleep over in your house, don't be surprised when you awake in the morning, every thing in your house is gone.

 

[wavy]

It is in the Numeric translation, which means its numeric pattern is consistent with that of the rest of the Bible.Therefor its authentic .

Nonsense.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[awaken]

This passage is inspired Scripture and it is part of the New Testament canon. For example, in the section on Mark 16:9-20, The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Walvoord and Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary) says that:

"verses 9-20, though written or compiled by an anonymous Christian writer, are historically authentic and are part of the New Testament canon ... Possibly these verses were brief extracts from the post-Resurrection accounts found in the other three Gospels and were known through oral tradition to have the approval of the Apostle John who lived till near the end of the first century. Thus the material was included early enough in the transmission process to gain acceptance by the church as part of canonical Scripture. These verses are consistent with the rest of Scripture." (p.194, emphasis added).

Sometimes the above passage is called "the longer ending of Mark," implying that Mark 16:9-20 is a "disputed" passage. We should be careful here, though. It is true that scholars are uncertain about who wrote Mark 16:9-20, because the evidence suggests that Mark did not write this passage himself. However, the uncertainty is over who wrote the passage. God has watched over His Word and has ensured that the Bible contains exactly what He wanted it to contain. God saw to it that this passage was accepted into the canon of Scripture and therefore it is infallible Scripture, and it is included in some form in all modern versions of the Bible. Some of the early church fathers quoted from this passage, which means that it comes from the earliest days of Christianity. Without this passage, the Gospel of Mark ends abruptly at verse 16:8 ("Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.") without ever mentioning the risen Jesus. This leads many scholars to believe that the original ending of Mark may have been lost or destroyed and that it may have been added back in by scribes. People sometimes want to dismiss Mark 16:9-20 because it seems to have been written by an anonymous person, but what they don't realize is that the entire Gospel of Mark is anonymous and nobody knows for sure who wrote any of it! Furthermore, all of the Gospels are anonymous, but all four of them, including the Mark 16:9-20 passage, have been canonized as inspired Scripture. The book of Hebrews is also canonized Scripture, yet nobody knows who wrote it. The human authors of other books and portions of Scripture are unknown as well, such as John 7:53-8:11, Deuteronomy 2:10-12, 20-23, 3:13b-14, 34:1-12, the Old Testament books of 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Esther, and numerous other parts of the Old Testament, yet we don't dispute the fact that these books and passages are canonized Scripture.

 

[wavy]

awaken,


The topic of this thread is not theological views on whether or not Mark vi.9-20 is 'inspired scripture', but whether or not it is original to the text of Mark. The evidence dictates an emphatic 'no'.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[awaken]

awaken,


The topic of this thread is not theological views on whether or not Mark vi.9-20 is 'inspired scripture', but whether or not it is original to the text of Mark. The evidence dictates an emphatic 'no'.


Thanks,
Eric

I do not see evidence that proves that it is not in the original! If you would have read my post I said why...

 

[mondar]

.... deleted....
For example, in the section on Mark 16:9-20, The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Walvoord and Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary) says that:

"verses 9-20, though written or compiled by an anonymous Christian writer, are historically authentic and are part of the New Testament canon ... Possibly these verses were brief extracts from the post-Resurrection accounts found in the other three Gospels and were known through oral tradition to have the approval of the Apostle John who lived till near the end of the first century. Thus the material was included early enough in the transmission process to gain acceptance by the church as part of canonical Scripture. These verses are consistent with the rest of Scripture." (p.194, emphasis added).

It looks to me as if Walvoord and Zuck do not necessarily think the passage is original to the Gospel, but think it to be an early addition by a scribe that knew John. I wonder how they connect this passage to oral tradition and John? The next paragraph gives us a hint at their thinking. They do not explain why this longer ending gets connected to A (Alexandrinus) and C (Phhrami Rescriptus) in the 5th century and not Aleph and B in the 4th Century, or why is it missing in many of the translations? Lets look at the evidence presented.

Sometimes the above passage is called "the longer ending of Mark," implying that Mark 16:9-20 is a "disputed" passage. We should be careful here, though. It is true that scholars are uncertain about who wrote Mark 16:9-20, because the evidence suggests that Mark did not write this passage himself.

OK, they admit to evidence problems

However, the uncertainty is over who wrote the passage. God has watched over His Word and has ensured that the Bible contains exactly what He wanted it to contain. God saw to it that this passage was accepted into the canon of Scripture and therefore it is infallible Scripture, and it is included in some form in all modern versions of the Bible.

I am not sure I can agree with the theological conclusions drawn here. I certainly agree with the infallibility of scripture, but they seem to assume that the longer ending must be included as part of the infallible scripture. I dont feel as sure of that assumption.

Some of the early church fathers quoted from this passage, which means that it comes from the earliest days of Christianity. Without this passage, the Gospel of Mark ends abruptly at verse 16:8 ("Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.") without ever mentioning the risen Jesus. This leads many scholars to believe that the original ending of Mark may have been lost or destroyed and that it may have been added back in by scribes.

What Church Fathers quoted it? I suppose I could look it up. The date of the Fathers would be important evidence.

People sometimes want to dismiss Mark 16:9-20 because it seems to have been written by an anonymous person, but what they don't realize is that the entire Gospel of Mark is anonymous and nobody knows for sure who wrote any of it! Furthermore, all of the Gospels are anonymous, but all four of them, including the Mark 16:9-20 passage, have been canonized as inspired Scripture. The book of Hebrews is also canonized Scripture, yet nobody knows who wrote it. The human authors of other books and portions of Scripture are unknown as well, such as John 7:53-8:11, Deuteronomy 2:10-12, 20-23, 3:13b-14, 34:1-12, the Old Testament books of 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Esther, and numerous other parts of the Old Testament, yet we don't dispute the fact that these books and passages are canonized Scripture.

I think this paragraph confuses authorship with dating. The arguments against the longer ending are not based upon authorship.

The Argumentation in this short article seems close to KJV only thinking. Certainly I am willing to read posts that present good evidence. I am not certain what to think about the longer ending, I have my doubts about its authenticity. It seems to me that W and Z also recognize that the longer ending is not original with the autograph.

 

[wavy]

I do not see evidence that proves that it is not in the original! If you would have read my post I said why...

I have already posted the reasons why scholars are convinced the longer ending of Mark isn't original to that gospel. You have not addressed a single line of this evidence.

However, your problem is that you're confusing an irrelevant theological issue (canon/inspiration) with a textual issue (whether or not the passage is a later addendum not written by the author of the bulk of the gospel/not in the autograph).

You need to understand this difference before you endeavor to address the topic.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Imagican]

And I agree that the last eight verses DO NOT FIT the first eight verses. And, NO apostle that was PRESENT, at the TIME that these words were supposedly uttered, wrote of ANY SUCH utterance. When we read the entirety of the NT, we find that it becomes apparent that the commission of Mark was derrived from events that were common to the REST of the NT. Paul's snake bite. Luke's offering of handling deadly serpents, the 'tongues of Acts', etc..............

It seems AWFUL susspect that NO OTHER Gospel, EVEN those written by THE APOSTLES, offers such a commission stated by Christ upon His last visit. I mean, IF these words were TRULY UTTERED, they are of such MOMUMENTAL IMPORTANCE, how is it that NEITHER MATTHEW OR JOHN heard them or thought they were significant enough to PEN? And when we consider that Mark's words were perhaps the LAST written so far as Gospels and that what he wrote was MOST DEFINITELY 'second hand' information, it is LIKELY that, even IF he wrote the last eight verses, they were merely 'created words' instead of ACTUAL words that were uttered by Christ. Created in reference to events that were COMPILLED throughout the NT. Since the Gospel of Mark was supposedly written around 70 AD, then it just offers FURTHER evidence that there is little REASON to believe that the words have AS MUCH significance as has been PLACED upon them by those UNAWARE of the discrepencies.

Blessings,

MEC