The End Part of the Gospel of Mark

Bro. Ruben · Feb 25, 2006

I read an article saying the last 12 verses of Mark are not in the original writings. This I find really bothersome.

Can you please enlighten me on this.

If this topic has been discussed on other threads, just lead me to the link then the Mods may delete this query.

Thanks much, God bless.

Bro. Ruben

Diggin in da Word · Feb 25, 2006

Many of the modern versions omit the last several verses of the 16th chapter of Mark.

These versions leave Jesus in the grave and the disciples cowering in fear.

IMO, it is an attempt of satan trying to plant doubt in the mind that Christ arose. First these passages removed, tomorrow, more.

They try to cover their tracks of removing verses by saying ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))
9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

Gold Dragon · Feb 25, 2006

This site summarizes four major variants found in the Mark ending and major manuscripts that support those endings.

A Student's Guide to NT Textual Variants : Mark 8:10-16:20

Mark 16:8:
TEXT: include verses 9 through 20
EVIDENCE: A C D K W X Delta Theta Pi f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 Byz some Lect most lat vg syr(c,p,h,pal) most cop
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV1n RSV2 NASV(text ed.) NIV NEBn TEVn
RANK: "A" to omit; included in double brackets

NOTES: omit verses 9 through 20
EVIDENCE: S B 304 2386 most Lect(?) syr(s) one cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSV1 RSV2n NASVn NIVn NEBn TEVn

NOTES: include the following plus verses 9 through 20: "But they reported briefly to Peter [and] those around [him] all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself also sent out through them, from east even to west, the sacred and imperishable preached message of eternal salvation. Amen."
EVIDENCE: L Psi 099 0112 274margin 579 one Lect syr(h)margin some cop
TRANSLATIONS: RSV2n NASV(ref.ed.) NEB TEV

NOTES: include the reading above and omit verses 9 through 20
EVIDENCE: one lat
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn NEBn

COMMENTS: Verses 9 through 20 are in double brackets in the UBS text, which means that the UBS Textual Committee felt that they were not originally written by Mark. Verses 9 through 20 are missing from manuscript 2386 because a leaf is missing from the manuscript at this point. The so-called "short ending" quoted above is obviously not original. It was possibly written to end a manuscript that was missing verses 9 through 20. Verses 9 through 20 are often suspected of having been added to Mark to give it an ending, because it is supposedly written in a different style from the rest of Mark. A close examination of style, however, reveals that it is not so different in style from the rest of Mark as is sometimes claimed. See the Appendix: " The Style of the Long Ending of Mark."

The key to the manuscript and translation abbreviations is here.

The link for the appendix is incorrect. It should point to : The Style Of The Long Ending Of Mark

Bro. Ruben · Feb 25, 2006

The two (2) things I find “bothersome” are the following:

1) In verse 12 it says that Jesus appeared in another “form”. Was it right? What I knew He rose in the same body He died in. Yes I admit Jesus had a glorified body but He arose in the same form. How about saying Jesus did rise in the same body but in another substance – for having a glorified body? Is it correct to claim that?

2) In verse 18 it says “… and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them”. From what other part of the Bible we can support this teaching?

Thanks.

Diggin in da Word · Feb 25, 2006

1.) Although Jesus was in a body, it was not a glorified one. He had not returned to His Father yet.

What kind of body? Flesh and bone. Blood is not mentioned, for it all was lost at Calvary.

An interesting thing, Mary recognized Jesus after He spoke. Maybe the 'different form' was what Mary saw as well, for she thought He was the gardener.

It was not until He spoke her name that she recognized Him. And we know the disciples that evening saw Him in the locked room, Thomas not being present.

He spoke to the eleven before they acknowledged it was them at that time also. So maybe He took on a different form from the moment He left the tomb. Yet, He still kept those scars from the nails.

2.) I am not sure, but that is an important verse, as you see.

rbell · Feb 25, 2006

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:

What kind of body? Flesh and bone. Blood is not mentioned, for it all was lost at Calvary.

How's that again? No blood?

A resurrected body without blood is not a resurrected body. Sure, Jesus shed his blood, but how do you figure "it was all lost at Calvary?" Blood wasn't mentioned, but neither was hair. You reckon Jesus was bald, too?

If God can raise Jesus from the dead, He can probably scrounge up an extra pint or two of plasma.

Bro. Ruben · Feb 25, 2006

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
1.) Although Jesus was in a body, it was not a glorified one. He had not returned to His Father yet.

What kind of body? Flesh and bone. Blood is not mentioned, for it all was lost at Calvary.

An interesting thing, Mary recognized Jesus after He spoke. Maybe the 'different form' was what Mary saw as well, for she thought He was the gardener.

It was not until He spoke her name that she recognized Him. And we know the disciples that evening saw Him in the locked room, Thomas not being present.

He spoke to the eleven before they acknowledged it was them at that time also. So maybe He took on a different form from the moment He left the tomb. Yet, He still kept those scars from the nails.

2.) I am not sure, but that is an important verse, as you see.

Being not recognized by Mary was logical for two reasons:

1. It was still dark (very early part of the morning) and she was inside the cave
2. She was crying; tears might partially blocking her eyesight

So, if she didn’t quickly recognize Jesus that I find realistic.

Bro. Ruben · Feb 25, 2006

Originally posted by rbell:

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
[qb]

Blood wasn't mentioned, but neither was hair. You reckon Jesus was bald, too?

Click to expand...

Hahaha... didn't He go to a barber prior to resurrection.

Opppsss.. Joking.

Diggin in da Word · Feb 25, 2006

It was yet dark when Mary went to the tomb, but she saw the stone was moved away from the entrance. She ran and told Simon Peter and that other disciple.

The two disciples ran to the tomb. They entered the tomb and saw the grave linens and the napkin that that covered the face.

They left.

Now, it could have gotten light by then, for Mary was able to see in the tomb when she stooped down and looked in. (it stands to reason if it was too dark for her to see Jesus' face, then it would have been even harder to see in the dark tomb, yet the disciples and Mary all were able to see in it).

Mary was not in the tomb at all, she stooped down and looked in. She saw two angels and talked with them. Then she turned around and saw Jesus.

I believe it was not grief that hid Jesus' face from Mary. For, she ran down the road and saw and talked with the disciples. The Bible does not say she supposed them to be someone else.

Linda64 · Feb 25, 2006

Originally posted by rbell:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:

What kind of body? Flesh and bone. Blood is not mentioned, for it all was lost at Calvary.

How's that again? No blood?

A resurrected body without blood is not a resurrected body. Sure, Jesus shed his blood, but how do you figure "it was all lost at Calvary?" Blood wasn't mentioned, but neither was hair. You reckon Jesus was bald, too?

If God can raise Jesus from the dead, He can probably scrounge up an extra pint or two of plasma. </font>[/QUOTE]Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones , as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)

NO blood mentioned here.

THE NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION BODY.
(1) It is a real, physical body (Lu 24:36-43) .
(2) It is an incorruptible body (1Co 15:42) . It is not subject to decay and infirmity.
(3) It is a glorified body (1Co 15:43) . This speaks of the kingly glory of the resurrected Christ in which the believer will share.
(4) It is a spiritual body (1Co 15:44). This does not mean the resurrection body is not physical, which would contradict the entire testimony of Scripture; it means the resurrection body is not natural like man's present body. 1Co. 15:44 contrasts the natural body with the spiritual body. Both are real bodies, but they are different types of bodies. In man's present condition, man's spirit is subject to the body to a large degree; in the resurrection, the spirit will control the body. Of the cherubim, the Scripture says, "Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went" (Eze 1:20). This will be true for the resurrected believer.
(5) It is an immortal body (1Co 15:53). This means it is not subject to death.

Way of Life Encyclopedia

John of Japan · Feb 25, 2006

Originally posted by Bro. Ruben:
The two (2) things I find “bothersome” are the following:

1) In verse 12 it says that Jesus appeared in another “form”. Was it right? What I knew He rose in the same body He died in. Yes I admit Jesus had a glorified body but He arose in the same form. How about saying Jesus did rise in the same body but in another substance – for having a glorified body? Is it correct to claim that?

2) In verse 18 it says “… and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them”. From what other part of the Bible we can support this teaching?

Thanks.

Hi, Bro. Ruben.

Personally, I think the long ending of Mark belongs there. There is solid manuscript evidence for it (even Vaticanus, I think it is, has a space for where it should have been, but it was not copied), many church fathers refer to it, and the chapter reads strangely without it or even with the shorter ending.

Now for your questions:

(1) The Greek word here is "morphe," and there is no real problem with its interpretation. Here is what A. T. Robertson says: "'In another form (en heterâi morphêi).' It was not a metamorphôsis or transfiguration like that described in Mr 9:2. Luke explains that their eyes were holden so that they could not recognize Jesus (Lu 24:16). This matchless story appears in full in Lu 24:13-32."

(2) There is nothing specific in Scripture about drinking poison, but the concept is not foreign to our faith. I believe it was Richard Wurbrand who told about being accosted by a prison guard in Rumania, where he was imprisoned for the cause of Christ. The guard showed him this passaged and said, "If the Bible is true, you can drink this poison I have and not be harmed. Drink it!" Wurmbrand drank it and was protected by the Lord.

God bless.

Martin · Feb 25, 2006

Diggin in da Word:

Many of the modern versions omit the last several verses of the 16th chapter of Mark. These versions leave Jesus in the grave and the disciples cowering in fear.

==I had to verify this claim so I went through my library and checked every Bible version I have. Not one of them lack these verses. Not one. They all, KJV included, have notes about this text either in the margin or before this section. So I would like to know what major modern translations "omit" the long ending of Mark.

The short ending of Mark does not leave Jesus in the grave (as you falsely claim). The long ending starts at verse 9. However we find the wonderful fact of the resurrection in verse 6-7:

"And he said to them, Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazrene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you." Mark 16:6-7 NASB

___________________________________________

it is an attempt of satan trying to plant doubt in the mind that Christ arose. First these passages removed, tomorrow, more.

==Since the passages have not been removed, and since verses 6-7 contain the resurrection message, and since both Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, and all the Epistles and Letters proclaim the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead I must doubt your "satan trying to plant doubt" claim.

I must ask you, on what basis do you claim these verses have been "removed"?

____________________________________________

They try to cover their tracks of removing verses by saying ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

==This gets into textual issues that are complicated. However the statement is correct. The majority of manuscripts do contain the long ending, however the earliest most trusted manuscripts do not. This does not mean the verses are false but it does mean we should seek to find out if they are part of Mark's original gospel or not. Personally I think it does not matter. Take the verses or leave them the message does not change. As pointed out above Mark's gospel proclaims Jesus' resurrection before the questioned verses and the rest of the New Testament proclaims the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

This is not about people removing verses.
These are scholars working with the text just like the scholars who translated the KJV did. Modern scholars use various manuscript tools (etc) and make the best judgments they can about textual issues.

There is no conspiracy here. Sorry to disappoint.

In Christ,
Martin.

Gold Dragon · Feb 25, 2006

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
What kind of body? Flesh and bone. Blood is not mentioned, for it all was lost at Calvary.

Blood is formed in the bone marrow and travels through the flesh to nourish it with oxygen, glucose and other nutrients.

I don't believe I've ever heard of the phrase "flesh, bone and blood" when someone refers to a whole body. It is usually just "flesh and bone" or "flesh and blood". "flesh and bone" usually includes blood. "flesh and blood" usually includes bone.

[ February 25, 2006, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

standingfirminChrist · Feb 25, 2006

double post edited

standingfirminChrist · Feb 25, 2006

Martin,

Mary Magdalene, Mary, and Salome did not go and tell the news, but went and hid in fear. Why did they not tell the disciples as commanded? Verse 8 says 'neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.' So, the disciples still did not know.

Then, the modern verses interject that 'The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.'

Just inserting that little sentence casts doubt that the last 12 verses even belong in the chapter. My sister has a NIV that has that missing. I have seen others with it missing. It is not in there except at bottom of page they insert a footnote saying what is omitted.

Martin · Feb 25, 2006

standingfirminChrist:

Mary Magdalene, Mary, and Salome did not go and tell the news, but went and hid in fear. Why did they not tell the disciples as commanded?

==Actually Mark 16:8 is in agreement with Matthew 28:8. They evidentially did go tell the disciples at some point as the angel commanded them (Matthew 28:8-9 and Luke 24:9). If verse 8 is where Mark stopped writing then he chose not to include that material in his Gospel account. This would not shed doubt on the event since all four of the Gospels are selective with what events they record (ie...they are not identical). So if verse 8 is where Mark stopped then it is where his Gospel stopped. We can't add to it just because we don't like his ending. Someone (who was uncomfortable with Mark's ending) may have come along at a early point and added verses 9 and following thinking the shorter ending was not correct (the grammer of verse 9 may in fact support that theory). The fact that these verses mainly appear in later (and thus the majority of our manuscripts) manuscripts sheds some doubt on the idea that Mark actually wrote it. Even by the 4th century Eusebius and Jerome noted that the majority of their manuscripts did not contain the long ending of Mark.
______________________________________

Then, the modern verses interject that 'The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.'
Just inserting that little sentence casts doubt that the last 12 verses even belong in the chapter.

==That sentence is not there to cast doubt. Rather the note is there to present a factual situation. We are being honest with the text. There is no conspiracy among translators to cause doubt about the Bible. To leave the textual note out, along with other textual notes, would leave the reader unaware of textual variants.

_________________________________________

My sister has a NIV that has that missing. I have seen others with it missing. It is not in there except at bottom of page they insert a footnote saying what is omitted.

==Where what is omited? The note or the text? If you are talking about the text being put in a footnote that is simply how some publishers deal with the issue. I have several NIV Bibles in my library and all of them have verse 9 and following in the main portion of the text. Then they offer a side note explaining the situation with the text.

In Christ,
Martin.

Hope of Glory · Feb 26, 2006

The Ending of Mark

Click the link to read the entire article. Below is an excerpt:

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.

rbell · Feb 26, 2006

A couple of thoughts:

The "no blood" arguement is silly. It also didn't mention Jesus' appendix, parietal lobe, and toenails. But I be He had them. Let's not make the Bible make points that it doesn't intend to make.

Second, I have a question: any of ya'll ever preached or taught from this passage? Just curious...

John of Japan · Feb 26, 2006

Originally posted by rbell:
A couple of thoughts:

The "no blood" arguement is silly. It also didn't mention Jesus' appendix, parietal lobe, and toenails. But I be He had them. Let's not make the Bible make points that it doesn't intend to make.

Second, I have a question: any of ya'll ever preached or taught from this passage? Just curious...

First of all, it's kind of getting off topic, but I just had to comment!

Rbell, how in the world do you (or any of us) know what a resurrection body is like? Frankly, I don't think He has (not "had") an is appendix or parietal lobe. (No need for them in Heaven!) Toenails? Maybe! "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" ...So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." (1 Cor. 15:35, 42-44)

For your second point, yes, I've preached many times on Mark's Great Commission.

Bro. Ruben · Feb 27, 2006

Originally posted by John of Japan:

(2) There is nothing specific in Scripture about drinking poison, but the concept is not foreign to our faith. I believe it was Richard Wurbrand who told about being accosted by a prison guard in Rumania, where he was imprisoned for the cause of Christ. The guard showed him this passaged and said, "If the Bible is true, you can drink this poison I have and not be harmed. Drink it!" Wurmbrand drank it and was protected by the Lord.

God bless.

Question is, are you willing to teach/preach such doctrine in your church?

Thanks.

The End Part of the Gospel of Mark

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member