Mark 16: 9-20?

[MennoSota]

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

I prefer Giordano's Chicago style, but I'm pretty sure it's not the original pizza.

 

[tyndale1946]

I prefer Giordano's Chicago style, but I'm pretty sure it's not the original pizza.

So lets cut to the chase a get down to brass tax so to speak... If what some say is true, it should be ripped out of every bible it is in... Because according to Timothy it was not added by men later though some think it was... To each his own!... I'll sick with Timothy!... Brother Glen

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[TCassidy]

The earliest documents carry more weight than the later documents. This is why there is an annotation regarding vs 9-20 of Mark 16.

And citations from the Patristics dating to the opening years of the 2nd century, fully 150 years prior to the "oldest and best" manuscripts contain the longer reading.

So, number: supports longer ending.
Age: supports longer ending.
Layout of manuscripts: both Aleph and B support the longer ending.

Conclusion: the longer ending is canon.

 

[MennoSota]

So lets cut to the chase a get down to brass tax so to speak... If what some say is true, it should be ripped out of every bible it is in... Because according to Timothy it was not added by men later though some think it was... To each his own!... I'll sick with Timothy!... Brother Glen

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Are all commentaries scripture? Is Mark 16:9-20 scripture...or commentary added later?
There is no consensus to the point that we say vs 9-29 is apocryphal. But...research points in that direction.

 

[MennoSota]

And citations from the Patristics dating to the opening years of the 2nd century, fully 150 years prior to the "oldest and best" manuscripts contain the longer reading.

So, number: supports longer ending.
Age: supports longer ending.
Layout of manuscripts: both Aleph and B support the longer ending.

Conclusion: the longer ending is canon.

Maybe. Which is why the verses remain...with a notation.

 

[InTheLight]

...with young men.

Oooo.. That one burns.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[tyndale1946]

And citations from the Patristics dating to the opening years of the 2nd century, fully 150 years prior to the "oldest and best" manuscripts contain the longer reading.

So, number: supports longer ending.
Age: supports longer ending.
Layout of manuscripts: both Aleph and B support the longer ending.

Conclusion: the longer ending is canon.

Hellooooooo T.C... The Man... I want to tell you all how I came to post this... I was on another site and young man 21 was discussing scripture with a well researched atheist and the young mans Christian friends, this is the story he gave... He had his KJV with him, and his friends had their translations with the disclaimer about the addition in Mark... The atheist true to form said You see your God does not even exist. You cannot even agree on the translation as I have checked thoroughly and this was added later by men... He was a sly silver tongued devil and had done his research... So the young man asked others online what should be my answer to him and wanted to hear from those who are KJV not any who were not... My answer to him, he being a novice, was walk away, not only that RUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!... You are no match for this man!... He is trying to get you to doubt your belief... If he can get you to doubt that, he can get you to doubt something else... But he still thinks he needs to confront him and show this atheist the error of his thinking... Like that's going to happen... I keep telling him LEAVE THIS MAN ALONE... So I ask you brethren, did I give him proper godly counsel?... I think if I encountered an atheist... I would say I believe in God, you don't!... Goodbye... Have any of you brethren ever had an encounter with an atheist?... Just curious... Brother Glen

 

[rlvaughn]

Irenaeus makes a direct reference to the ending of the Gospel of Mark, and this reference is to the long ending. This is in his Against Heresies, with an estimated date range of AD 175-185, so prior to the two older manuscripts that don't have it.He quotes the Scripture (Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God, KJV) and places the words at the end of Mark’s Gospel.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Ch. 10.5
“Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, which shall prepare Your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God. Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in the spirit and power of Elias, Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God. For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God; confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool. Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.”

Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885
[bold referencing mine]

 

[MennoSota]

Hellooooooo T.C... The Man... I want to tell you all how I came to post this... I was on another site and young man 21 was discussing scripture with a well researched atheist and the young mans Christian friends, this is the story he gave... He had his KJV with him, and his friends had their translations with the disclaimer about the addition in Mark... The atheist true to form said You see your God does not even exist. You cannot even agree on the translation as I have checked thoroughly and this was added later by men... He was a sly silver tongued devil and had done his research... So the young man asked others online what should be my answer to him and wanted to hear from those who are KJV not any who were not... My answer to him, he being a novice, was walk away, not only that RUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!... You are no match for this man!... He is trying to get you to doubt your belief... If he can get you to doubt that, he can get you to doubt something else... But he still thinks he needs to confront him and show this atheist the error of his thinking... Like that's going to happen... I keep telling him LEAVE THIS MAN ALONE... So I ask you brethren, did I give him proper godly counsel?... I think if I encountered an atheist... I would say I believe in God, you don't!... Goodbye... Have any of you brethren ever had an encounter with an atheist?... Just curious... Brother Glen

In the end, God must open our hearts to Him.
That being said, you can discuss the fact that the Bible is better documented than any ancient document. If you can't accept the history presented in the Bible, then you cannot accept any ancient history because the documentation is so weak.
Read "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus" by Nabeel Qureshi as an example of the use of biblical apologetics.
You may not feel comfortable because it doesn't match your gifts, but God has gifted brothers and sisters to powerfully argue the faith.
I might have provided a direction for him to educate himself behind the argument for biblical authenticity and then go talk to the atheist. I say this because...how will the atheist know he's wrong if he does not hear?

 

[tyndale1946]

In the end, God must open our hearts to Him.
That being said, you can discuss the fact that the Bible is better documented than any ancient document. If you can't accept the history presented in the Bible, then you cannot accept any ancient history because the documentation is so weak.
Read "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus" by Nabeel Qureshi as an example of the use of biblical apologetics.
You may not feel comfortable because it doesn't match your gifts, but God has gifted brothers and sisters to powerfully argue the faith.
I might have provided a direction for him to educate himself behind the argument for biblical authenticity and then go talk to the atheist. I say this because...how will the atheist know he's wrong if he does not hear?

I'm thinking of inviting him over here and see if he comes... You brethren who are good in mentoring can take over... That is not my god given talent... I bow in humble submission to the brothers and sisters who do... Brother Glen

 

[MennoSota]

I'm thinking of inviting him over here and see if he comes... You brethren who are good in mentoring can take over... That is not my god given talent... I bow in humble submission to the brothers and sisters who do... Brother Glen

I would suggest he read Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Christ" as a good primer. Also Josh McDowell's well traveled book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" is worth a read.

 

[JonC]

Have any of you brethren ever had an encounter with an atheist?... Just curious... Brother Glen

I have. Over time he came to know Christ. Last I heard he was the youth pastor for a small baptist church.

I think the key is not to argue but to explain and shut up when the explanation becomes an argument. I've never really seen the benefit in debating atheists, but I respect those who think otherwise.

 

[MennoSota]

I have. Over time he came to know Christ. Last I heard he was the youth pastor for a small baptist church.

I think the key is not to argue but to explain and shut up when the explanation becomes an argument. I've never really seen the benefit in debating atheists, but I respect those who think otherwise.

Agreed. The interaction has to be a respectful dialogue where both parties share their worldviews and are free to question the presuppositions of the other person.
Since God will grant us perseverance in the faith we can confidently dialogue and even acknowledge the areas where we find agreement with an atheist. Like us all, they are sinners trying to find a meaning in a world that is meaningless without Christ.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

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.

See for yourself.

http://www.alanknox.net/2007/04/last-twelve-verses-of-mark-conference_13/


The Last Twelve Verses of Mark ConferenceSession 1 – Daniel Wallace

These people think they are right as well

 

[TCassidy]

Of course, snake handling has nothing to do with the canonicity of the last 12 verses of Mark.

The promise was fulfilled in Acts 28:3 and following.

One of the first things I was taught in seminary was "Don't claim a promise that was not made to you."

As to your suggested pages. Read this one. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark ConferenceSession 2 - Maurice Robinson

 

[rsr]

I admit to being an agnostic on the topic. There are as many proofs that is not original as it is original. Irenaeus saw a copy of Mark with the ending, it seems. Yet there are many early witnesses that omit it.

Doc has carefully chosen his words: It is canonical. That doesn't necessarily mean it is original to Mark (unless I am misinterpreting him) but that is it also inspired, whatever the provenance.

The reference to venomous snakes can be taken two ways: Mark was prophesying about the adventures of Paul and Luke or that the writer was familiar with the story in Acts and shoehorned it into the end of Mark.

I tend to the latter, but that would knock the traditional dating of the Gospels into a cocked hat ... unless you consider the longer ending Mark to be a later addition.

 

[One Baptism]

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

Manuscripts (MSS, abbreviated) evidence for the reading (or Gospel ending) of Mark 16:9-20 KJB-

3 of the so-called Great Uncials : A (Alexandrinus), C (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus), D (Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis), and many other Uncials: E, F, G, (H), K, (L), M, S, U, V, (W), X, Y.

It is in - Gamma, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, (Psi), Omega, (099), (0112).

In thee vast # (1,000's of MSS) of "Cursives", being in "MAJORITY", fam 1,13.

Old Latin - aur, c, d-suppl, ff2, g1,2, l, n, o, p, r2, & Vulgate (1,000's of MSS)

SYRIAC - peshitta, curetonian, harclean, palestinian.

COPTIC - sahidic, bohairic, fayyumic.

Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic.

It is extant (available) in 047, 055, 0211, 0233?, 0257.

Early bishops (so-called ECF), who claimed direct succession of the Apostles never left it out-

TATIAN, Diatessaron, (I 10:125,126,128,129), in entirety.

IRENAEUS, Against Heresies (I 1:426), vs. 16:18

TERTULLIAN, Resurrection of Flesh (I 3:584), vs. 16:19; Against Praxeas (I 3:627), vs. 16:19

CYPRIAN, 7th Council (I 5:569), refers to vs. 16:17,18; Gospel of Nicodemus (I 8:422,432,436,445), vs. 16:15-19

APHRAHAT, Demonstrations (III 13:351), vs. 16:16-19

APOSTOLIC CONST. (I 7:457,479), vs 16:16-19

AMBROSE, The Holy Spirit (III 10:133,134), vs. 16:15-18; Const. of Faith (III 10:216), vs. 16:15; Repentance (III 10:335), vs. 16:17,18.

Nothing in indexes of the ANPF of pre-400 AD father quoting up to vs. 8 and stopping.

Main line Bibles always had it: AV (KJB), HF & CR*; Tyndale, Great, Geneva, Bishops, Stephanus, Th. Beza, Elzivir bro., E, 238, 239, 440, 475-2nd. cor., 477, 486, 488, 489, 1071, & etc.

Basically in 10,000's of MSS, only 'missing' in: Aleph (Sinaiticus) [which omits Gen. 23:19-24:46, Num. 5:27-7:20, 1 Chron. 9:27-19:17, Exo., Jos., 1 & 2 Sam., 1 & 2 Ki., Jdg., Hos., Amo., Mic., Eze. Dan., Mrk 16:9-20 (with room for it), Jhn. 7:53-8:11; & adds Shep. of Hermes, & Ep. Barnabus], B (Vaticanus), the 2 most 'emended' (corrupted) Codices and in 'pc' (UBS cites 1 lone cursive*), (k), sin, sa-ms, Arm-mss.

 

[TCassidy]

There are as many proofs that is not original as it is original.

I disagree. There is actually only one "proof." I will deal with this one last.

Irenaeus saw a copy of Mark with the ending, it seems. Yet there are many early witnesses that omit it.

Not only that but the longer ending is found in the Diatessaron (Tatian - late 1st century at the earliest, mid 2nd century at the latest) not to mention the versional evidence found in the Syriac (2nd century) and the Curetonian Syriac (3rd century), and Jerome's Latin, which was a revision of the Vetus Itala, which dates to the 2nd century.

Doc has carefully chosen his words: It is canonical. That doesn't necessarily mean it is original to Mark (unless I am misinterpreting him) but that is it also inspired, whatever the provenance.

Yes, I do often use those "weasel words" but in this case I do believe it belongs at the end of Mark. The objections that the last 12 verses use words that Mark does not use and are written in a style differing from Mark's normal writing style just won't stand up to close inspection. Forms of those "unique" words are found elsewhere in Mark, and the abruptness of his writing style can also be found elsewhere in Mark.

And last but certainly not least. As Dr. Maurice Robinson puts it in the page I recommended, if the verses appeared in either Aleph or B there would be no argument. They would be considered genuine no matter what any other evidence said. And that is the only real "proof" offered. If it is not in Aleph or B it can't be genuine.

 

[TCassidy]

3 of the so-called Great Uncials : A (Alexandrinus), C (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus), D (Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis), and many other Uncials: E, F, G, (H), K, (L), M, S, U, V, (W), X, Y.

Dates?

It is in - Gamma, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, (Psi), Omega, (099), (0112).

Dates?

In thee vast # (1,000's of MSS) of "Cursives", being in "MAJORITY", fam 1,13.

Dates?

Old Latin - aur, c, d-suppl, ff2, g1,2, l, n, o, p, r2, & Vulgate (1,000's of MSS)

Dates?

SYRIAC - peshitta, curetonian, harclean, palestinian.

Dates?

COPTIC - sahidic, bohairic, fayyumic.

Dates?

Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic.

Dates?

It is extant (available) in 047, 055, 0211, 0233?, 0257.

Dates?

TATIAN, Diatessaron, (I 10:125,126,128,129), in entirety.

Date?

IRENAEUS, Against Heresies (I 1:426), vs. 16:18

Date?

TERTULLIAN, Resurrection of Flesh (I 3:584), vs. 16:19; Against Praxeas (I 3:627), vs. 16:19

Dates?

CYPRIAN, 7th Council (I 5:569), refers to vs. 16:17,18; Gospel of Nicodemus (I 8:422,432,436,445), vs. 16:15-19

Dates?

APHRAHAT, Demonstrations (III 13:351), vs. 16:16-19

Date?

APOSTOLIC CONST. (I 7:457,479), vs 16:16-19

Date?

AMBROSE, The Holy Spirit (III 10:133,134), vs. 16:15-18; Const. of Faith (III 10:216), vs. 16:15; Repentance (III 10:335), vs. 16:17,18.

Dates?

The point is that copying and pasting a lot of manuscript/versional/ECF information without including the dates they were written is effectively useless to this discussion.

Any evidence you provided which dates to after about 350 AD, the date of Aleph (B probably dates to around 325) does not relieve us of the "older is better" claim.

What we need to do is show that there is older evidence that shows that the reading existed prior to Aleph and B ([sarcasm]because "older is better"[/sarcasm]) so that it is equally likely that Aleph and B removed the reading rather than manuscripts post Aleph and B added it.

 

[Rippon]

Basically in 10,000's of MSS, only 'missing' in: Aleph (Sinaiticus) [which omits Gen. 23:19-24:46, Num. 5:27-7:20, 1 Chron. 9:27-19:17, Exo., Jos., 1 & 2 Sam., 1 & 2 Ki., Jdg., Hos., Amo., Mic., Eze. Dan.

You are mistaken. Sinaiticus has Gen. 23:19-Gen. 24:46; Numbers 5:26-7:20; 1 Chron. 9:27--1917; Amos, Micah.(Among other books and fragments of the O.T.)

I wouldn't use the term "omitted" though.Through wear and tear a number of books and passages fell away.