Is all of Mark inspired by God?

[SavedByGrace]

Why not address the views of those rejecting your premise, rather than using fallacious arguments?

No one including your Net Bible can disprove Burgon. Period

 

[VDMA]

Listening to a John MacArthur talk yesterday, he mentioned that a part of Mark was not supposed to be there or some such thing. Is there anyone here that agrees with that idea and is prepared to support it?

Sigh: my opinion is Mark 16: 9-20 is inspired and part of the cannon of scripture. This is why I have a problem with ESV and other modern translation placing brackets around Mark 16: 9-20, it gives impression that people can pick and choose. Tradition has accepted these as canonical.

Here’s my final point. Does Mark 16: 9-20 change doctrine, does it change the doctrine of Baptist, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc? No (emphasis on no). I could see his point if it changes doctrine but it doesn’t change anything. MacArthur is just casting confusion.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Sigh: my opinion is Mark 16: 9-20 is inspired and part of the cannon of scripture. This is why I have a problem with ESV and other modern translation placing brackets around Mark 16: 9-20, it gives impression that people can pick and choose. Tradition has accepted these as canonical.

Here’s my final point. Does Mark 16: 9-20 change doctrine, does it change the doctrine of Baptist, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc? No (emphasis on no).

The ending as found in the KJV especially the last few verses are seen by some to support Pentecostals

 

[Reynolds]

No, rather we do not see that as a foundational verse to built entire theology upon!

No! You challenge it as inspired!

 

[SavedByGrace]

No, rather we do not see that as a foundational verse to built entire theology upon!

Are you denying the Inspiration of the ending of the KJV

 

[VDMA]

The ending as found in the KJV especially the last few verses are seen by some to support Pentecostals

Pentecostal (craziness) will draw from other scriptures passage, it still doesn’t change doctrine, even Pentecostal doctrine.

What comes to mind is Pentecostal snake handling. Wacky. Mark 16:18 then they go to Acts 16:16–18.

 

[canadyjd]

Listening to a John MacArthur talk yesterday, he mentioned that a part of Mark was not supposed to be there or some such thing. Is there anyone here that agrees with that idea and is prepared to support it?

Johnny Mac is an excellent biblical scholar. Those that study biblical Greek recognize a major change in the writing style at about 16:10 and do not believe the same author, Mark, wrote it. It’s not a matter of his writing that part at a later date, it is plainly someone else writing. Others have already given several theories for this change.

You rightly point out that the question comes down to whether we believe it is Holy Spirit inspired scripture.

I find what is taught after v.10 is consistent with other passages that are readily accepted as scripture. Even the passage concerning handling snakes could be seen as fulfilled when Paul was bitten by the poisonous snake after his shipwreck on the journey to Rome.

So, to answer directly, I have no problem accepting it as scripture since it is consistent with other passages and has early inclusion in the canon.

peace to you

 

[dad2]

I have read the book many years ago and have been studying textual criticism for over 30 years, and have no doubt that the reading in the KJV is 100% genuine.

I doubt very much that anyone can refute what Burgon concludes

OK, since I have no issue with all of Mark anyhow, that works for me.

 

[dad2]

Pentecostal (craziness) will draw from other scriptures passage, it still doesn’t change doctrine, even Pentecostal doctrine.

What comes to mind is Pentecostal snake handling. Wacky. Mark 16:18 then they go to Acts 16:16–18.

That seems about right. However, preachers such as John MacArthur probably are not much concerned with that. Yet they seem determined to discount the end of Mark.

 

[dad2]

Johnny Mac is an excellent biblical scholar. Those that study biblical Greek recognize a major change in the writing style at about 16:10 and do not believe the same author, Mark, wrote it. It’s not a matter of his writing that part at a later date, it is plainly someone else writing. Others have already given several theories for this change.

You rightly point out that the question comes down to whether we believe it is Holy Spirit inspired scripture.

I find what is taught after v.10 is consistent with other passages that are readily accepted as scripture. Even the passage concerning handling snakes could be seen as fulfilled when Paul was bitten by the poisonous snake after his shipwreck on the journey to Rome.

So, to answer directly, I have no problem accepting it as scripture since it is consistent with other passages and has early inclusion in the canon.

peace to you

I wonder if we can really say Mark did not write it. Mark was young and went through a lot of lessons and learning. This was all around the time the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, so it seems reasonable to me that a delay may have been a natural consequence. Then we have Mark's track record of leaving unfinished business, that cause some contention in Acts. Could it be that he was also working on the gospel of Mark at the time? In any case, he learned under Peter they say. He easily could have learned new lingo and terms and styles of talking and etc. It looks like we really do not know. So why not give God the benefit of the doubt and assume Mark did finish what he started later?

 

[dad2]

Here are the NET footnotes concerning Mark verse 9 and beyond.

9tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Θ Ë13 33 2427 Ď lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”

sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

We know Mark left a mission trip unfinished. So why not assume he also left his gospel unfinished, but later finished it?

 

[George Antonios]

Pentecostals depend on it being there.

Not a reason to X it out of the word of God. I have no problem with it, rightly divided.

 

[George Antonios]

This is the kind of blasphemous mess the "Scholarship Only" crowd gets us into by adopting a humanistic view of the Bible (ex: only the originals are inspired, the Bible in your hands has mistakes): we think nothing of tossing out an entire portion of the word of God. To even discuss this is beyond sad.

 

[atpollard]

Mark 16:9-20 may or may not have been in the earliest of manuscripts. There is evidence for both views and here's one link giving both sides. A lot of pastors will not preach from that section of Mark.

Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel? (thegospelcoalition.org)

Read also:

Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

I find it more interesting that the question is moot.
While there are verses in the "questionable" portion of Mark that are convenient for their clarity, there is nothing in the passages in question that are essential to any doctrine. It adds no information that is not also found elsewhere.

 

[dad2]

This is the kind of blasphemous mess the "Scholarship Only" crowd gets us into by adopting a humanistic view of the Bible (ex: only the originals are inspired, the Bible in your hands has mistakes): we think nothing of tossing out an entire portion of the word of God. To even discuss this is beyond sad.

Exactly. Yet John MacArthur generally does not do that. Yet he teaches this. I guess I will simply chalk it up to he is wrong again on something. (as he is with Calvinism/predestination etc) That being said I seem to agree with him on maybe 85 or 90% of things.

 

[canadyjd]

I wonder if we can really say Mark did not write it. Mark was young and went through a lot of lessons and learning. This was all around the time the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, so it seems reasonable to me that a delay may have been a natural consequence. Then we have Mark's track record of leaving unfinished business, that cause some contention in Acts. Could it be that he was also working on the gospel of Mark at the time? In any case, he learned under Peter they say. He easily could have learned new lingo and terms and styles of talking and etc. It looks like we really do not know. So why not give God the benefit of the doubt and assume Mark did finish what he started later?

I don’t discount scholarship. My understanding of Greek is very limited, but there is clear agreement among those that are committed to study biblical Greek that the writing style is so different after about v.10 that it’s very unlikely Mark wrote it.

Not a hill to make a stand on, imo.

peace to you

 

[dad2]

I don’t discount scholarship. My understanding of Greek is very limited, but there is clear agreement among those that are committed to study biblical Greek that the writing style is so different after about v.10 that it’s very unlikely Mark wrote it.

Not a hill to make a stand on, imo.

peace to you

Well, I think that a style can change. Especially if there was a delay for some reason (maybe he did not finish the book, or maybe there was a delay with the situation around 70AD etc) His views must have changed as Paul later forgave and wanted him back. Peter also taught Mark over time apparently. So it would be natural to learn new words, ways of forming a sentence, ideas, styles etc.

 

[Alcott]

Try drinking a deadly poison to see if you survive. That will confirm or deny at least that part.

 

[dad2]

Try drinking a deadly poison to see if you survive. That will confirm or deny at least that part.

It does not say anyone who ever lives can go ahead and drink poison. It does indicate that even if we had to do so, God can protect us. We would not toss ourselves into a burning furnace to see if we would burn as proof Daniel is real.

 

[George Antonios]

but there is clear agreement among those that are committed to study biblical Greek that the writing style is so different after about v.10 that it’s very unlikely Mark wrote it.

wow, that is some narrow pool you're drawing from. Reams of scholarship have been written in defence of including the passage.
If today there is some measure of agreement for blotting it out, it's among an increasing number of apostates that nest in the branches of the humanistic only scholarship tree.