Mark 16: 9-20?

[tyndale1946]

Maybe someone could enlighten me, this verse is in my KJV but I have heard it is not in other translations... Sorry you other brethren are missing it in yours... Could somebody explain to me why the controversy?... Beats anything I ever heard... Brother Glen

 

[blessedwife318]

Maybe someone could enlighten me, this verse is in my KJV but I have heard it is not in other translations... Sorry you other brethren are missing it in yours... Could somebody explain to me why the controversy?... Beats anything I ever heard... Brother Glen

I don't know of a single translation that does not include them, so I'm not sure where you got your information from. I just looked at Biblegateway, and every version I clicked on had those verses. What most of them do however is note that those verses are not found in the earliest manuscripts. I don't know what the controversy is about giving people information. But again no Bible is missing those verses.

 

[JonC]

Maybe someone could enlighten me, this verse is in my KJV but I have heard it is not in other translations... Sorry you other brethren are missing it in yours... Could somebody explain to me why the controversy?... Beats anything I ever heard... Brother Glen

They are in my NASB, ESV, and HCSV. There is a note at the bottom saying a few late manuscripts contain these verses.

 

[tyndale1946]

They are in my NASB, ESV, and HCSV. There is a note at the bottom saying a few late manuscripts contain these verses.

Yes Jon I to finally looked on line at these verses and different versions and sandwiched in between verses 8 and 9 was that disclaimer... Just was strange to me, who only reads KJV... Me and my sequestered KJV world... It is there because it was meant to be there!... Brother Glen

 

[MennoSota]

King James took reckless liberties...[emoji33] [emoji41] [emoji56]

 

[Rippon]

King James took reckless liberties...

...with young men.

 

[JonC]

Yes Jon I to finally looked on line at these verses and different versions and sandwiched in between verses 8 and 9 was that disclaimer... Just was strange to me, who only reads KJV... Me and my sequestered KJV world... It is there because it was meant to be there!... Brother Glen

My KJV also has the footnote that those verses are not in earlier manuscripts.

I like the note and the verses being present. It lets the reader consider both the passage while informing them that the early manuscripts (that we have) do not contain those verses. We can then know these verses may have been a addition or may have been excluded at an early date. (I like having the most info possible).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

They are in my NASB, ESV, and HCSV. There is a note at the bottom saying a few late manuscripts contain these verses.

I think I'm right in saying that a grand total of three ancient Greek manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20 and more than 900 include it.

 

[JonC]

I think I'm right in saying that a grand total of three ancient Greek manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20 and more than 900 include it.

If I'm not mistaking, the issue is less the number of manuscripts and more the age of the manuscripts. We have Mark concluding with verse 8 in the two oldest manuscripts, a shorter ending (in some Latin manuscripts), and this longer ending (in several Greek manuscripts).

I don't think we can merely say that most of the manuscripts have the passage so it should be there any more than we can say the earliest we have do not have the passage so it should not be there. We have to consider with this "more than 900" that the majority are Ethopic copies.

That said, the passage does not alter Scripture - it does not introduce new doctrine. I do not advocate removing the passage, but I also do not advocate concealing the fact that the oldest manuscripts that we know of do not contain the verse from those studying the scripture.

 

[Reformed]

If I'm not mistaking, the issue is less the number of manuscripts and more the age of the manuscripts. We have Mark concluding with verse 8 in the two oldest manuscripts, a shorter ending (in some Latin manuscripts), and this longer ending (in several Greek manuscripts).

I don't think we can merely say that most of the manuscripts have the passage so it should be there any more than we can say the earliest we have do not have the passage so it should not be there. We have to consider with this "more than 900" that the majority are Ethopic copies.

That said, the passage does not alter Scripture - it does not introduce new doctrine. I do not advocate removing the passage, but I also do not advocate concealing the fact that the oldest manuscripts that we know of do not contain the verse from those studying the scripture.

That is why many translations have that passage in italics or brackets.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If I'm not mistaking, the issue is less the number of manuscripts and more the age of the manuscripts. We have Mark concluding with verse 8 in the two oldest manuscripts, a shorter ending (in some Latin manuscripts), and this longer ending (in several Greek manuscripts).

I don't think we can merely say that most of the manuscripts have the passage so it should be there any more than we can say the earliest we have do not have the passage so it should not be there. We have to consider with this "more than 900" that the majority are Ethopic copies.

That said, the passage does not alter Scripture - it does not introduce new doctrine. I do not advocate removing the passage, but I also do not advocate concealing the fact that the oldest manuscripts that we know of do not contain the verse from those studying the scripture.

I do not have a problem with Bible versions noting that three early MSS do not contain the verses and the rest do, but they don't do that, do they? As you yourself note:

They are in my NASB, ESV, and HCSV. There is a note at the bottom saying a few late manuscripts contain these verses.

If you are being factual, and I'm sure you are, these Bible versions are telling outright lies. Uncials A, C and D contain the verses and they date from the 5th Century. Hardly late! And 900+ is hardly 'few.'

 

[MennoSota]

Some of the commentary in vs 9-16 is inconsistent with the rest of Mark. The most obvious is the remark about being bitten by snakes. This comment seems like a commentary added at a later date rather than a comment written by Peter/Mark. In fact an entire culture of snake charming in the Appalachian hills is created from this verse. So...has an incorrect theology been created from a passage that may not be scripture?

 

[JonC]

I do not have a problem with Bible versions noting that three early MSS do not contain the verses and the rest do, but they don't do that, do they? As you yourself note:

If you are being factual, and I'm sure you are, these Bible versions are telling outright lies. Uncials A, C and D contain the verses and they date from the 5th Century. Hardly late! And 900+ is hardly 'few.'

I don't think they mean late in terms of an extensive amount of time (what's a few centuries in the grand scheme of things anyway). When they say earlier or later (this occurs several times) I believe they mean simply the earlier ones and the later ones (in relation to each other regarding the manuscripts we have). I don't think they are including the Ethopic copies, but I don't know.

All of my bibles have this note (even my KJV). Personally, I like it that all of these versions include both the text and the note.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't think they mean late in terms of an extensive amount of time (what's a few centuries in the grand scheme of things anyway). When they say earlier or later (this occurs several times) I believe they mean simply the earlier ones and the later ones (in relation to each other regarding the manuscripts we have). I don't think they are including the Ethopic copies, but I don't know.

All of my bibles have this note (even my KJV). Personally, I like it that all of these versions include both the text and the note.

My NKJV says, 'Vv. 9-20 are bracketed in the N.U. [Nestle-Aland & United Bible Soc] as not in the original They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss of Mark contain them.' For 'nearly all' read 'all but one' but otherwise that seems very fair.

 

[JonC]

My NKJV says, 'Vv. 9-20 are bracketed in the N.U. [Nestle-Aland & United Bible Soc] as not in the original They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss of Mark contain them.' For 'nearly all' read 'all but one' but otherwise that seems very fair.

If they put "all but one" then they'd be wrong (it should read "all but the two earliest 4th Century manuscripts")

The passage is there to study. I'd lean towards it being wrong to include the passage as if there were no debate or as if the oldest manuscripts contained the passage AND that it'd be wrong to simply omit the passage.

Another example is John 5:3b-4 where an angel of the Lord went down and stirred up the waters and who ever made it first was healed. This seems very much contrary to how God heals in Scripture, so many (myself included) believe this to be a note of explanation, perhaps not needed initially, that made its way into the passage to explain the tradition. And again, "Early mss do not contain" this information.

The truth is that we simply do not know if those verses were added as a form of closure to Mark (either the short or long versions), or if for some reason they were simply missing from the older manuscripts. I think that we can form opinions and educated guesses but we have to be very careful when we start attacking the other position (not saying you are, BTW).

 

[tyndale1946]

I think I'm right in saying that a grand total of three ancient Greek manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20 and more than 900 include it.

Like I told you brethren I never knew there was a controversy... So these scripture never stood out to me, but 900 out of three? To me that's a no brainer... Thanks for that Brother Martin... So I took a closer look at the verses mentioned... Now I am not the sharpest pencil in the box. I do not have theological degrees or been to any seminaries or know Greek or Hebrew... Not a preacher...I'm just an unworthy sinner trying to serve my God as we all are... But if you closely examine those verses, especially verse fourteen Jesus has a strong rebuke for his disciples!

Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

After he heals them of their UNBELIEF, AND HARDNESS OF HEART... Only then are they fit for the Great Commission he gives them... Then and only then do they understand how to preach their risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

All I can say is compare John 20 and fill in the holes... Brother Glen

 

[Yeshua1]

Maybe someone could enlighten me, this verse is in my KJV but I have heard it is not in other translations... Sorry you other brethren are missing it in yours... Could somebody explain to me why the controversy?... Beats anything I ever heard... Brother Glen

Many of the best and more ancient sources did not have that so called longer ending as being part of the original Gospel ending...
Same thing with passage about woman caught in adultery....

 

[MennoSota]

Like I told you brethren I never knew there was a controversy... So these scripture never stood out to me, but 900 out of three? To me that's a no brainer... Thanks for that Brother Martin... So I took a closer look at the verses mentioned... Now I am not the sharpest pencil in the box. I do not have theological degrees or been to any seminaries or know Greek or Hebrew... Not a preacher...I'm just an unworthy sinner trying to serve my God as we all are... But if you closely examine those verses, especially verse fourteen Jesus has a strong rebuke for his disciples!

Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

After he heals them of their UNBELIEF, AND HARDNESS OF HEART... Only then are they fit for the Great Commission he gives them... Then and only then do they understand how to preach their risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

All I can say is compare John 20 and fill in the holes... Brother Glen

If the original pizza had just red sauce and cheese on a flat bread and there are three pizzas made in that fashion...is it accurate to say that pizzas that add pepperoni and sausage are original pizzas?

The pizza may still be good to eat, but it's not identical to the original.

So...the earliest three manuscripts do not have vs 9-20 in Mark 16. This is important if we care about what the original version was. It doesn't matter that 900 versions added the other "elements". It matters what the original looked like.
The idea that the greater number is more important than the earliest version is extremely flawed when we are trying to determine what the original document said. The earliest documents carry more weight than the later documents. This is why there is an annotation regarding vs 9-20 of Mark 16.

King James translators did not have access to the earliest documents that have been discovered. That explains why there is no annotation in KJV Bibles.

 

[tyndale1946]

If the original pizza had just red sauce and cheese on a flat bread and there are three pizzas made in that fashion...is it accurate to say that pizzas that add pepperoni and sausage are original pizzas?

The pizza may still be good to eat, but it's not identical to the original.

So...the earliest three manuscripts do not have vs 9-20 in Mark 16. This is important if we care about what the original version was. It doesn't matter that 900 versions added the other "elements". It matters what the original looked like.
The idea that the greater number is more important than the earliest version is extremely flawed when we are trying to determine what the original document said. The earliest documents carry more weight than the later documents. This is why there is an annotation regarding vs 9-20 of Mark 16.

King James translators did not have access to the earliest documents that have been discovered. That explains why there is no annotation in KJV Bibles.

I never thought of it that way MennoSota... That makes perfect sense to me... Comparing scripture and Dominos... I seen some ridiculous post on here but this one takes the cake... Excuse me pizza... Every now and then I can dish it out too!... You want original or deep pan... Brother Glen

 

[Yeshua1]

If the original pizza had just red sauce and cheese on a flat bread and there are three pizzas made in that fashion...is it accurate to say that pizzas that add pepperoni and sausage are original pizzas?

The pizza may still be good to eat, but it's not identical to the original.

So...the earliest three manuscripts do not have vs 9-20 in Mark 16. This is important if we care about what the original version was. It doesn't matter that 900 versions added the other "elements". It matters what the original looked like.
The idea that the greater number is more important than the earliest version is extremely flawed when we are trying to determine what the original document said. The earliest documents carry more weight than the later documents. This is why there is an annotation regarding vs 9-20 of Mark 16.

King James translators did not have access to the earliest documents that have been discovered. That explains why there is no annotation in KJV Bibles.

That is why the Kjv can be considered to be a fixed translation, as the modern ones can and do have updayed source at times, while theirs has been fixed!