Last 12 verses of Mark

They may have been told that, but the fact remains they were left in fear if the chapter stops at verse 8. Had they believed what they heard in verse 7, they would not have been afraid still in verse 8.

 

==Actually, as I have already pointed out, fear was a natural response to such amazing news. That is why Jesus, in Matthew 28:8-10, has to tell them "Do not be afraid". Jesus' resurrection is included in the shorter ending as is the promise of His going to Galilee where they would see the resurrected Lord. Nothing is left out, we have three other Gospels to tell us the rest of the story.

If Mark ended his account with verse 8, we should not feel the need to add to what he wrote.

 

1. I read the book of Mark on Christmas and when I came to 9-20, frankly speaking, I hesitated.

2. I've studied the evidence for and against the last 12 verses of Mark and currently, I do not believe they need to be in our English Bibles.

3. The Greek of Mark 16:9-20 is radically different than the rest of the book of Mark.

 

Here's what the NET Bible footnote says on the issue at hand:

"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 Ï 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.”"

 

Well, since some of the oldest Greek mss DO have it, I think I'll stick with it.

I have found Nothing in vv 9-20 to contradict ANYTHING scripturally or spiritually speaking and not enough evidence to conclusively prove it was NOT originally there.

I haven't looked yet but I'm currious, did any early church fathers quote those verses? That would be a good sign as to 'potential' verasity.

Give me a bit and I will check and get back with yall

 

According to Wiki, there were Church fathers on both sides of the coin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16
===
It is claimed that some of the early church fathers appear to use 16:9–20:

Justin Martyr wrote in his First Apology (ch.45) that the apostles, "going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere." A comparison of this paragraph shows that it is highly likely that he was borrowing his terms from the longer or shorter ending;

Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies III:10:5–6, which was written c. 185;

Eusebius of Caesarea and Philip of Side record the writings of Papias (c. 125–150), who mentions that Justus Barsabbas (c.f. Acts 1:23) once drank a poisonous drink and suffered no ill effects. The motivation for this story may have been to provide an example of the fulfillment of Mark 16:18; furthermore Papias claimed that Mark did not omit anything that Peter had preached.

Eusebius and Marinus (c. 330) both reflect knowledge of the existence of the longer ending, in Eusebius' work Ad Marinum; but Eusebius also relates that the Long Ending is not in the accurate manuscripts. Eusebius provides Marinus with a scheme to harmonise (and thus retain) Mark 16:9 via the use of Matthew 28:1.

Augustine (d. 430) used 16:9–20 in Easter sermons. This demonstrates that, by the early 400's, the longer ending had been established in the lectionary in North Africa.

However, Mark 16:9–20 is absent in other early church fathers (e.g. Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome). At any rate, all that can be concluded from this use of the longer ending is that, rightly or wrongly, Mark 16:9–20 had become part of Church tradition and scripture much like other apocryphal writings such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, neither of which are now considered canonical.
===
Please take Wiki with caution...

 

Lebuick,

Outside of Wiki, what do you have?

 

In or outside of Wiki I have what the Lord has placed on my heart. I believe this is the same with everyone here. You can find substantial support throughout time for both sides of this discussion. Not only were the Church Fathers split, the OP linked us to a recent group of scholars who are still split today. Some manuscripts omitted the verses yet other manuscripts had included them.

The fact is without the original manuscript (or Mark himself), an absolute answer can’t be reached. We do know it somehow made the cannon. How is all theory. I’ve heard disputes over the last few verses of Duet as well as the two Isaiah writer theory. Just as we don’t just toss those passages out, I hesitate to toss out these.

Am I wrong, snake handling and consuming poison are all that are really being disputed? I don’t plan to tempt the Lord my God on either of these. How about you?

 

1. I have no problem in accepting Mark 16:9-20, but I need solid, textual evidence. For example, 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is found in MSS, but too late to be taken seriously.

2. I need more than Wiki.

 

I didn't know this, isn't that the trinity?

 

The Trinity does not stand or fall on 1John 5:7-8, which appears to be an interpolation.

 

BTW, I don't use the KJV. I use the NASB95--my study, preaching and teaching Bible. :thumbs:

 

Sorry, I did know this. Just had to get by a Bible and see the verse. I agree, the trinity don't stand or fall by this one verse, however, I personally use it from time to time. I see this as the same as Christ baptism by John.

I have a NASB77 which is as you say, without.

By the way, back to the subject, you say you need good textual evidence for that which is in the cannon. Isn't that backwords? I mean, there are good evidence (old manuscripts) on both sides of this AND it made the cannon. Why is it you need evidence to prove it should be there instead of needing evidence to say it shouldn't be there?

 

1. What do you mean it's in the canon? How is it in the Canon, when it's bracketed and hotly debated for centuries?

2. Being in our Bibles is really not the same as being in the Canon. Is it?

 

Nevermind...

 

Nevermind... I see there were many councils each making changes to "the canon" so again, there is no way to tell...

 

The 3 main MSS would have been available but not those containing these disputed verses.

 

More arguments in favor of the longer ending:

(1) The two oldest mss do not have it. However, as Burgon and many after him have shown, Siniaticus has space for it. Also, the only mss the apparatus of UBS 3 show omitting the longer ending are: Aleph, B and 304. (I'm not counting the patristic evidence listed there.) Compare this to the many, many mss. listed in UBS 3 as having it, and you have to conclude that a slavish allegiance to Aleph, B and 304 is all that causes doubt.

(2) It reads far better in Greek to have the longer ending, since without an ending of any kind the passage ends in gar--an extremely strange ending for a koine Greek book.

(3) Every single Bible I have in Greek (including my 1886 Westcott and Hort), English, Japanese, Chinese and Latin (all the languages I can read) have the longer ending, even if it is in brackets. No one seems to have the guts to actually leave the longer ending out. Maybe God is trying to gell us something! :smilewinkgrin:

Anyway, who on this thread is an actual textual critic? I certainly am not! So good luck with the rest of this thread, guys. I promised my sweetheart I'd watch a movie with her right now. Catch you later.:wavey:

 

1. I have seen the space for the some kind of ending in B. Aleph and 304 do have it and ACD have the shorter ending.

2. John, both of us can read Greek at a decent level and you know, if you have read vv. 9-20, that the vocabulary is radically different to the rest of the book of Mark. What is the explanation for this?

3. I'm willing to accept the vv. 9-20, but not without good, solid evidence, since it can be an interpolation. I think you would agree with me.

4. I quite agree, but we can read what the textual critics have been wrestling with and make up our own minds. I think that is possible. :thumbs:

 

The TR, Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, and the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text Form all include the longer ending with no footnotes. So then it comes down to Byzantine/Majority vs. Alexandrian/ecelectic. :smilewinkgrin:

Now think about it. On the Byzantine side we have 100% agreement that the longer ending is part of the text. On the eclectic/Alexandrian side we have no one who is willing to drop it completely. At a minimum UBS/Nestles and even W & H have it in brackets, meaning they lean more towards including it than omitting it. So IMO the majority opinion of scholars leans toward including it.

I've never put much stock in arguments from vocabulary and style differences, going back to the higher criticism attacks on the Pentateuch and Isaiah, or the arguments on Hebrews. The truth is, the sum total of the Greek vocabulary of the NT is a fairly small number as you know, and no doubt less than what Mark knew, or any other educated 1st century Greek speaker. So who is to say that Mark didn't purposefully use a few different words in his ending?

I had a book published in 1979 which can be seen on my website. (Grandpa ran the publishing company and I wrote the first chapter about him! ) My first two chapters, being narrative, were radically different in style from the third, which was more doctrinal and thus different from the last, hortatory chapter (which had some poems). But I wrote it that way on purpose, and knew what I was doing. Mark could easily have done the same thing.

The alternatives are: no ending (meaning ending with fear at v. 8; very unsatisfactory), the shorter ending (virtually nothing there, and little mss support), or the longer ending. With the longer ending we have a Gospel similar to the other Gospels, complete with a Great Commission and resurrection narrative. Of the three possibilities, the longer ending makes much more sense to me.

Also, I think the resurrection argument is very strong. Why in the world would Mark leave out most of the resurrection narrative? It was only the greatest miracle the world has ever seen, a foundational part of the Gospel, and as Paul points out in 1 Cor. 15, we are fools to give our all for Christ if the resurrection never happened. So I think that accepting the only ending which includes the resurrection of Christ is just plain common sense!

And again, it will be Byzantine vs. eclectic! So this debate is really tightly connected to the larger debate of textual criticism on textual families. How far do we want to go in that direction on this little thread? Wanna play textual critic and start a big one on the Greek texts? First thing in 2008? Whew!