Mark ends at Mark 16:8

[Darron Steele]

Mark 16:1-7 is very clear about Jesus' Resurrection. All four gospels report the Resurrection. I believe necessary inference from the text is enough.

Also, if a study Bible's annotations, or a congregation's Statement of Faith, agreed with Scripture passages, would that make it Scripture? No. The fact that some parts of the forged material after 16:8 agrees with genuine Scripture does not make it Scripture.

I advocate sticking with the evidence, rather than theological or philosophical considerations.

The evidence: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=38549

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

You can repeat your forged theory as many times as you want and it still does not make the verses a forgery but in your own mind and in the minds of others who believe the lie.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Nor does repetition convince me there is a resurrection before verse 8.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Darron Steele:

"Mark 16:1-7 is very clear about Jesus' Resurrection. All four gospels report the Resurrection. I believe necessary inference from the text is enough."

GE:

Jesus' resurrection is clearly inferred and clearly implied in Mk16. But NO Gospel mentions. the occurrence. ONLY Matthew describes the very circumstance of Jesus' resurrection. These are the facts, and these are the facts one must first of all, clearly recognise and abide to, before one may conclude, that Jesus truly rose from the dead again.

It is therefore ordinarily incorrect to state that "All four gospels report the Resurrection."

I, like you, believe necessary inference from the text is enough.
No one who denies Jesus' real, boduly, glorified, resurrection can be saved, not even though he may believe in Jesus' death for his sins. But it is a case of FAITH GIVEN, that we at all MAY believe.

For the purpose of a discusssion of this thread, one should not make more of the actual facts stated in any Gospel to conclude from in regard to its authenticity. The Purpose in this instance, however pious, won't justify or sanctify the method.

Therefore I (after no less than forty years of study on this very 'question') have NO question at all, Mark's 'second ending', though of later date than the 'first', is as authentic and canonical.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It is characteristic of any Gospel, that it is built up of distinguishable sources and parts of content. Luke says it in most simple terms where he begins his 'Acts of the Apostles'. The other authors all made use of the method. To decline is to be headstrong for no goor reason and to one's own enbarrassment and confusion in the end.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I would speak of the Compiler of a Gospel, rather than the Writer. Which would imply many more than just the Compiler, were 'inspired', or, handed down to us, the unfailing (inerrant) Word of God. Mark 16:9 on offers no occasion to reject it as this Written Word too.

My theory is each Gospel 'compiler' chose from any available 'sources',(at least two) stories that surrounded Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Being aware of one another's attempts, they were careful not be repetitious. Just one of the events of the specific days of Jesus' resurrection and appearances, got duplicated! It follows from this fact, indeed, that the only way to resolve the supposed 'differences' between the stories, is to arrange them in chronological order. Mark 16:9 -- because it is of later date and not an original source -- borrows from John 20:11f, and tells of Jesus' "first" appearance, "to Mary first of all, early on the First Day of the week".

The rest of this section, proffers no difficulty in respect to its 'inspirational' authenticity if smply is kept in mind, it records (like Matthew) of Apostolic mandate and authority. No one who came after them, may claim the same 'miraculous powers'. Claiming so will just expose such as a fraud -- which good use, supplies enough reason already, to take the 'second ending' for genuinely God's Word!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Where some idiotic texts would have it end, the two women are in fear, they do not believe Christ has risen because they do not go back to tell the disciples as they were told to do. Instead, they run off cowering and afraid.

If the story ends there, there is nothing but fear and suspicion that the Lord's body had only been stolen as the soldiers had been paid to say.

No, the verses continue with the account of the Lord appearing to people and talking with them.

The verses are not forgery, but proof of the resurrection written by the original author and inspired by the Holy Ghost.

The simple and only way to explain this story for true in every respect, is to see it in its correct chronological slot. Have it simultaneous with Matthew 28:8 on, for example, and you create objective, genuine, intransegent incoherencies and contradictions - which cannot represent God's Word about the history of Jesus resurrection. No, there different visits made to the tomb after the Resurrection; only solution! Mark 16 verse two further, tells of one - in fact not even the first - and verse 9 further tells of the actual first Appearance to mary ONLY : precisely of which John 20:11 on speaks. (John 20:1 is totally another story of completely another time of day!)

 

[xdisciplex]

I don't understand how christians can say that Mark 16:9-20 is not real and they are not even bothered by it. Do they not understand what this would mean!?
I think they don't even understand this. If this was in fact true then God wasn't able to protect His word, then we can directly start questioning every single verse which we don't like. Oh, I don't like this one. I think this one wasn't in the original bible.Welcome to the Jesus seminary... :BangHead:

Let's find out what Jesus really said.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I don't understand how christians can say that Mark 16:9-20 is not real and they are not even bothered by it. Do they not understand what this would mean!?
I think they don't even understand this. If this was in fact true then God wasn't able to protect His word, then we can directly start questioning every single verse which we don't like. Oh, I don't like this one. I think this one wasn't in the original bible.Welcome to the Jesus seminary... :BangHead:

Let's find out what Jesus really said.

GE:

'... the Jesus seminary ...' cemetery ...

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I liked your icon. What is the Christian Faith if not Resurrection Faith? Neither Christian, nor Faith (Juergen Moltmann)

 

[Darron Steele]

I don't understand how christians can say that Mark 16:9-20 is not real and they are not even bothered by it. Do they not understand what this would mean!?
I think they don't even understand this. If this was in fact true then God wasn't able to protect His word, then we can directly start questioning every single verse which we don't like. Oh, I don't like this one. I think this one wasn't in the original bible.Welcome to the Jesus seminary... :BangHead:

Let's find out what Jesus really said.

xdisciplex: We cannot question every passage of Scripture. Scripture is Scripture. What is not Scripture is not Scripture.

The forged "Gospel of Peter" is not Scripture even though there was congregational use of it in the late 100's; their affection for it did not make it Scripture. The Roman Catholic additions to the Old Testament are not Scripture. The forgery after Mark 16:8 is not Scripture.

There is absolutely no evidence that any part of Matthew 28 is not authentic. No one could reasonably propose that any part of Matthew 28 is a forgery, or Luke 24 for that matter -- or Mark 16:1-8.

However, everyone seems to prefer rhetoric, to appeal to emotionalism, and even deny that a Scripture text teaches the Resurrection for polemical purposes -- and no one seems to want to talk about the evidence:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=38549

 

[tragic_pizza]

If the verses following the eighth verse were proven, beyond doubt, to be a later addition, so what?

Aside from pulling the rug out from under snake-handling churches, there's nothing there which is not very solidly supported elsewhere in Scripture.

I'm just saying it isn;t worth getting worked up over. God is still God, the Word is still the Word, and Christ is still risen.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

tragic,

If Darron can make you believe that verses 9ff in Mark 16 are a forgery, then he can make you believe that many other verses in the Word of God are forgeries as well.

Verses such as John 5:4 that tells why the impotent man waited by the pool but was unable to receive a healing.

Mark 16:9ff are just as much Scripture as Genesis 49:10... or Exodus 20:13 or John 3:16.

 

[tragic_pizza]

tragic,

If Darron can make you believe that verses 9ff in Mark 16 are a forgery, then he can make you believe that many other verses in the Word of God are forgeries as well.

Well, you are assuming that Darron has the power to "make" me believe something, and this is simply not true. I possess a mind and the ability to study and draw conclusions on my own. You would do well to remember this fact in our future conversations.

Verses such as John 5:4 that tells why the impotent man waited by the pool but was unable to receive a healing.

This has nothing to do with our current discussion.

Mark 16:9ff are just as much Scripture as Genesis 49:10... or Exodus 20:13 or John 3:16.

OK. Fine. What if it isn't? Does God cease to be sovereign? Do you lose your faith? Are the dead suddenly not raised, the sick healed, the sinner saved?

None of the above. Look, scholars for years have understood that some very limited sections of Scripture might be from sources other than the original writers. So far, none of the "questionable" sections has had any bearng on spiritual truth.

For example, the account in John about the woman caught in the act of adultery was at one time an addendum to the Gospel of John, and was placed where it is later by someone. No one who thinks Scripture is inspired doubts that this part is God-inspired as well. We simply see that the story was out-of-place at one point in history and go, "hmm. That's interesting."

No one is losing faith in Christ because the end of Mark was lost at some point in history. Matthew, Luke, and John agree with Mark that the tomb was - and is - empy, and the other three Gospels go on to tell the glorious end (beginning?) of the story.

Of all the things we believers argue about, this may not be the least important, but it is very close.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

D.S. just a quick question......

When Balaam's ass spoke, was it a woman or a man's voice ?

 

[saturneptune]

What a ridiculous concept this thread is. This is the type of stuff that should not even be in question. As far as I am concerned, it does not belong in Baptist only posts, and for that matter, anywhere on a Christian board.

Hey DS, I have a great idea. You could put the Divinci Code at the end of Mark where you take out the Inspired verses. And dont forget your Book of Mormon.

 

[Eliyahu]

Darron,

I was disappointed with you and somehow surprised to hear you about this issue, because I noticed your soundness against Baptismal Regeneration and Catholic Mass etc.

Now, I do understand that the Truth doesn't lie with the number of supporters. Especially, as long as there are good reasons for the minority of the supporting mss.
However, in this case, I can hardly imagine any good reasons for the short ending.

I understand there are some more mss in addition to B and Aleph which intercalated the last 12 verses or less than 12 verses of Mark 16.
But in general I would summarize this as follows:

1) There are Greek 620 mss for Mark.
2) among them 615 belongs to Majority Texts and all of them have the Longer Ending at any rate.
3) Remaining 5 mss are Alexandrian texts, but only 2 of them have Shorter Ending, and those two are, B ( Vaticanus) and Aleph( Sinaiticus).
4) Among the remaining 3, 2 mss are A(Alexandrianus) and C( Codex Ephraemi) - both of them have the Longer Ending.
Both of them are almost as old as B and Aleph.

5) as for the last one, I am not sure it is P45 which doesn't have ch 16 of Mark or Codex Regius which have the partial Longer Ending intercalated.
Either P45 or Codex Regius doesn't matter very much.
Codex Regius has at least 2 or more verses of Longer Ending.

So, among 620 mss for Mark, at least 617 have the Longer Ending.

6) I do understand some more mss such as Coptic and Ethiopian mss have Shorter Ending.
7) Among 9,200 Latin NT texts before 16c, about 8,000 have the Longer Ending.
8) In any case, the absolute majority support Longer Ending.

9) Ethiopian mss and Coptic mss are full of errors and have less credibility, even though some of them have the Shorter Ending.

10) Many Alexandrian texts do not coincide each other, while Byzantine Texts are mostly coinciding each other.

11) Now looking at B ( Vaticanus), you should admit that it has an empty space after ch 16 of Mark which is sufficient for the Longer Ending while there used to be no space like that throughout NT.

12) As for Aleph ( Sinaiticus), it has the chapter 16 of Mark but it is not the original leaf but a kind of insertion, which implies the possibility that someone may have removed the original leaf with the Longer Ending and then inserted such Shorter Ending.

13) I mentioned several websites advocating Longer Ending, which mentions that Justin Martyr, Iraenaus, Papias, and several more ancient scholars seemed to have quoted the part of Longer Ending.

14) Both texts which has no Longer Ending are the mss preserved by Roman Catholics which practice Idolatry and worship Mary, which have not been faithful with the Words of God.

15) The Longer Ending includes the story that Jesus showed up to Mary Magdalene, not to Mary, which may be disappointing Catholics very much, without exalting her at all.

16) Again the credibility of those 2 mss must be checked again.
Vaticanus ( B) doesn't have the verse " Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" Luke 23:34.
Do you believe that it is not a part of the genuine Bible there?

17) Both B and Aleph also do not have the story about the woman caught in the adultery ( Pericope Adulturae) in John 7:53-8:11.
Do you believe that the Pericope Adulturae are not the part of the Bible?

I must tell you this, those 2 Catholic mss are full of errors, modifications, ridiculous mistakes, and we do not need them at all. KJV borrowed NOTHING from either of them.

You can confirm these points at the sites which I mentioned.

Please answer me about 16) and 17) first before you claim anything further.

 

[Darron Steele]

Eliyahu:


The majority of manuscripts of the New Testament are from the second millenium. You know, the era that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy dominated?

I do not trust the medieval church to have transported the apostles' church doctrine and practice accurately. I do not trust them to do so with the New Testamet churches' text either.

The farther back, the better.

So, let us discuss the ancient evidence. You claim that Codex Vaticanus is Roman Catholic. You know what? The Vatican fought having the contents of that manuscript made public for a long time. If Codex Vaticanus was so favorable to Roman Catholicism as it is slandered to be, the Vatican would not have been so seclusive of it.

Since you are strongly anti-Catholic, I point out that the Latin Vulgate has the traditional embellishment after Mark 16:8.

The scribe/s who created Codex Vaticanus left space for material after Mark 16:8. However, they did not copy in any such material. Explanation? The older manuscript that they were copying did not have any such material.

I believe you are inaccurate on the "Shorter Ending." The "Shorter Ending" is a short addendum meant to be added to Mark 16:8. It is the result of another person who was not satisfied with the ending of Mark. Neither Codex Vaticanus nor Sinaiticus include ANY such text.

You are also inaccurate on the dates of Codex A and Codex C. Both manuscripts date to the 400's. Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus date to the 300's.

I honor your desire to actually address the evidence. I suggest you spend more time with printed sources that attempt to deal accurately with the transmission of the New Testament text itself, rather than web articles designed to defend a particular English translation.

I am not interested in taking this thread off-topic to other passages.

 

[Alcott]

Why is the real meat in this discussion heretofore missing? If Mark 16:9-20 is valid scripture, then every believer will speak with new languages, will heal by laying on of hands, and will pick up snakes. No exceptions are made-- it says "these signs shall follow them that believe."

 

[Jerome]

Why is the real meat in this discussion heretofore missing? If Mark 16:9-20 is valid scripture, then every believer will speak with new languages, will heal by laying on of hands, and will pick up snakes. No exceptions are made-- it says "these signs shall follow them that believe."

One thing to remember about the end of Mark 16 is that Jesus is speaking to the apostles about their (un)belief:

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
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. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

The signs of Mark 16:17-18 are particular to the apostles.
Compare:

II Cor. 12:12
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Hebrews 2:3-4
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?