The case for Mark 16:16.

[37818]

The resurrection harvest
1 Firstfruit - Jesus and OT believers
2 Main harvest - the body of Christ formed in this age
3 Gleanings - Tribulation saints

I am not going to try to unscramble your your confusion.

There is only this one first resurrection then rapture, 1 Corinthians 15:52, Revelation 20:6.

 

[Conan]

In addition, it is not only the earliest Greek manuscripts which end at Mark 16:8. There is good evidence that the earliest form of the Gospel of Mark, as translated into Latin, Syriac, Sahidic Coptic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Armenian, and Georgian, all consisted of the text of Mark ending at 16:8. This is further very significant confirmation of the testimony of Eusebius as to the state of the text of Mark in the manuscripts of the fourth century. Here is a brief listing of the relevant evidence.13

• The oldest Old Latin manuscript (VL 1 = Codex Bobiensis, from the fourth or fifth century) concludes at Mark 16:8 with a version of the Shorter Ending and lacks 16:9–20
• The oldest Syriac manuscript (the Sinaitic Syriac, from the fourth century) ends at 16:8
• The oldest Sahidic manuscript (sa 1 = P. Palau-Ribes Inv. Nr. 182, from the fifth century) ends at 16:8
• The earliest evidence we have for the Christian Palestinian Aramaic version of Mark (Codex Sinaiticus Rescriptus in St Petersburg, Syr. No. 16) ends at 16:8
• The oldest Armenian manuscripts (going back to the ninth century) end at 16:8
• The oldest Georgian manuscripts (translated from the Armenian) end at 16:8

In each of these language groups, later witnesses include the Longer Ending, but that does not detract from the force of this observation. The general direction of travel in the manuscript evidence as we have it for Greek, Sahidic, Latin, Syriac, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Armenian, and Georgian, moves from an original, shorter Mark towards incorporating a version of Mark with the Longer Ending.

In other words, the Greek manuscript evidence, and the evidence within these six linguistic areas, works in the opposite direction to that proposed by James Snapp (and others). In short, it is not evidence that an original long form of Mark was subsequently edited down, but is in fact evidence for the opposite: the earliest form of Mark known in these areas ended at Mark 16:8, and this was subsequently supplemented with one or more of the available additional endings.

A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark by Peter Head

Thanks for the information! Yet no manuscript is anywhere near as old as Irenaeus in the 2nd century. So the Long ending of Mark was known, in Gaul of all places in the 2nd century. If it was known to Irenaeus in Gaul, it was in many Greek Manuscripts back then . That explains why it is in almost every Greek Manuscript today. If the short form were original in the first century that may explain a few drifters ending at 16:8. An incredible original reading barely leaving a trace. But a trace nonetheless.

 

[MrW]

Where did you get that from the text?

He that believeth (first and foremost) and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Believing always precedes water baptism.

Many people (by their own testimony) were baptized in water before salvation.

 

[Silverhair]

Thanks for the information! Yet no manuscript is anywhere near as old as Irenaeus in the 2nd century. So the Long ending of Mark was known, in Gaul of all places in the 2nd century. If it was known to Irenaeus in Gaul, it was in many Greek Manuscripts back then . That explains why it is in almost every Greek Manuscript today. If the short form were original in the first century that may explain a few drifters ending at 16:8. An incredible original reading barely leaving a trace. But a trace nonetheless.

While Irenaeus wrote of the ending of Mark it does not give support to all of the long ending. As we know there are various longer endings and they are placed in different locations. It is obvious that scribes did make alterations to the text.

But as I said before either answer is okay with me I really am okay with concluding that Mark16:9-20 belongs in the bible or that it doesn't. My faith and my beliefs are not impacted in any significant way by this.

 

[37818]

As we know there are various longer endings and they are placed in different locations.

Huh. First I have heard of this. Unless you are referring to variants of within the known Mark 16:9-20.

There exists the interpretation, the warning to the book of Revelation of Jesus Christ, Revelation 1:1, Revelation 19:10, Revelation 22:18-19, can be applied to the whole of the written word of God.

The issue becomes whether Mark 16:9-16 is or is not actually from the written God breathed words.

We have this promise, Proverbs 30:5-6,
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Who has proven the case that Mark 16:9-20 cannot be true?

 

[JD731]

I am not going to try to unscramble your your confusion.

There is only this one first resurrection then rapture, 1 Corinthians 15:52, Revelation 20:6.

My My so called confusion is true and your posting of two scripture references does not disprove it.

 

[37818]

Mark 16:18, 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.

Luke 10:19, Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

 

[37818]

My My so called confusion is true and your posting of two scripture references does not disprove it.

Doesn't disprove what?

There is only one event being the first resurrection, Revelation 20:4-6.
1 Corinthians 15:23, . . . Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. <<

 

[Dr. Bob]

Many people (by their own testimony) were baptized in water before salvation.

They might have been sprinkled, poured, dunked, or even 'dry cleaned' (Baptist churches that dedicate babies). But if it was
BEFORE salvation, it was NOT "Baptism". All they got was WET.

 

[37818]

But if it was
BEFORE salvation, it was NOT "Baptism".

But Mark 16:16 SAYS, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;

 

[37818]

Acts of the Apostles 8:12, But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts of the Apostles 8:14-16, Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

 

[kyredneck]

But Mark 16:16 SAYS, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;

...saved from what?

...and you're discombobulated, @Dr. Bob was not disputing this.

 

[JD731]

Who has proven the case that Mark 16:9-20 cannot be true?

Who has proven that Mark 9-20 can be true? No one here.

In the absence of apostles and prophets who were eye witnesses it cannot be proven by external sources. Therefore we are left with internal doctrinal evidence and that is more than sufficient to prove it is true.

One thing is absolutely sure. Peter said to Israel on Pentecost, the beginning, according to his 6 Jewish friends in Acts 10 when the gentiles were added through faith -

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

and that sure thing was that Peter said the same thing that Mark recorded Jesus saying in their apostolic commission in verses 15-16. So Peter understood the command and that it applied to Judah and Israel whether anyone else understands it or not. Here is proof if you will receive it.

14 ¶ But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (BEFORE THAT DAY OF THE LORD COME) shall be saved. 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

42 ¶ And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

In that transition time for Israel, one could have been a justified believer in Jesus but he would and must be baptized in water to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and be joined to the church of Jesus Christ, which had it's beginning here.

A gentile believer in Jesus Christ could not have received the Holy Ghost that day, nor any other day before Acts 10 because the door of faith was not opened to gentiles until then. If they could, then Acts 10-11 and many other things in the scriptures makes no sense.

So what these men you guys are so fond of quoting says matters not to me. I believe what God says and I have quoted some of the things he has said in this post. You will be on safe ground to believe it too.

 

[Silverhair]

Huh. First I have heard of this. Unless you are referring to variants of within the known Mark 16:9-20.

There exists the interpretation, the warning to the book of Revelation of Jesus Christ, Revelation 1:1, Revelation 19:10, Revelation 22:18-19, can be applied to the whole of the written word of God.

The issue becomes whether Mark 16:9-16 is or is not actually from the written God breathed words.

We have this promise, Proverbs 30:5-6,
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Who has proven the case that Mark 16:9-20 cannot be true?

there are various longer endings should have read there are various endings.

The external evidence includes the following:
(1) The two earliest (fourth century) uncial manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) omit the verses though their respective scribes left some blank space after Mar_16:8, suggesting that they knew of a longer ending but did not have it in the manuscript they were copying.
(2) Most all other manuscripts (fifth century on) as well as early versions support the inclusion of Mar_16:9-20.
(3) Several later manuscripts (seventh century on) and versions supply a “shorter ending” after Mar_16:8 which is clearly not genuine but all these manuscripts (except one) continue on with Mar_16:9-20.
(4) Early patristic writers — such as Justin Martyr (Apology 1. 45, ca. a.d. 148), Tatian (Diatessaron, ca. a.d. 170), and Irenaeus who quoted Mar_16:19 (Against Heresies 3. 10. 6) — support the inclusion of these verses. However, Eusebius (Questions to Marinus 1, ca. a.d. 325) and Jerome (Epistle 120. 3; ad Hedibiam, ca. a.d. 407) said Mar_16:9-20 were missing from Greek manuscripts known to them.
(5) An Armenian manuscript of the 10th century attributed Mar_16:9-20 to “the presbyter Ariston,” probably Aristion, a contemporary of Papias (a.d. 60-130) who was purportedly a disciple of the Apostle John.
(6) If Mark ended abruptly at Mar_16:8, then it is easy to see why some early copyist(s) wanted to provide a “suitable” ending for the Gospel from other authoritative sources. However, if Mar_16:9-20 were part of the original, it is difficult to see why the early copyists would have omitted it.

Internal evidence includes this data:
(1) The transition from Mar_16:8 to Mar_16:9 involves an abrupt change of subject from “women” to the presumed subject “Jesus” since His name is not stated in Mar_16:9 of the Greek text.
(2) Mary Magdalene is introduced with a descriptive clause in Mar_16:9 as though she had not been mentioned already in Mar_15:40, Mar_15:47 and Mar_16:1.
(3) About 1/3 of the significant Greek words in Mar_16:9-20 are “non-Marcan,” that is, they do not appear elsewhere in Mark or they are used differently from Mark’s usage prior to Mar_16:9.
(4) The Greek literary style lacks the vivid, lifelike detail so characteristic of Mark’s historical narrative.
(5) Mark would have been expected to include a Resurrection appearance to the disciples in Galilee (Mar_14:28; Mar_16:7), but the appearances in Mar_16:9-20 are in or near Jerusalem.
(6) Matthew and Luke parallel Mark until Mar_16:8 and then diverge noticeably, suggesting that Mark began its literary existence without Mar_16:9-20.

Equally astute and conscientious interpreters differ widely in their evaluations of this data and reach opposing conclusions. BKC

 

[37818]

...saved from what?

The same as the Romans 10:13 teaching. σωθησεται

 

[37818]

@JD731,
Why believe the words, if they are not true?

 

[37818]

there are various longer endings should have read there are various endings.

The external evidence includes the following:
(1) The two earliest (fourth century) uncial manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) omit the verses though their respective scribes left some blank space after Mar_16:8, suggesting that they knew of a longer ending but did not have it in the manuscript they were copying.
(2) Most all other manuscripts (fifth century on) as well as early versions support the inclusion of Mar_16:9-20.
(3) Several later manuscripts (seventh century on) and versions supply a “shorter ending” after Mar_16:8 which is clearly not genuine but all these manuscripts (except one) continue on with Mar_16:9-20.
(4) Early patristic writers — such as Justin Martyr (Apology 1. 45, ca. a.d. 148), Tatian (Diatessaron, ca. a.d. 170), and Irenaeus who quoted Mar_16:19 (Against Heresies 3. 10. 6) — support the inclusion of these verses. However, Eusebius (Questions to Marinus 1, ca. a.d. 325) and Jerome (Epistle 120. 3; ad Hedibiam, ca. a.d. 407) said Mar_16:9-20 were missing from Greek manuscripts known to them.
(5) An Armenian manuscript of the 10th century attributed Mar_16:9-20 to “the presbyter Ariston,” probably Aristion, a contemporary of Papias (a.d. 60-130) who was rtedly a disciple of the Apostle John.
(6) If Mark ended abruptly at Mar_16:8, then it is easy to see why some early copyist(s) wanted to provide a “suitable” ending for the Gospel from other authoritative sources. However, if Mar_16:9-20 were part of the original, it is difficult to see why the early copyists would have omitted it.

Internal evidence includes this data:
(1) The transition from Mar_16:8 to Mar_16:9 involves an abrupt change of subject from “women” to the presumed subject “Jesus” since His name is not stated in Mar_16:9 of the Greek text.
(2) Mary Magdalene is introduced with a descriptive clause in Mar_16:9 as though she had not been mentioned already in Mar_15:40, Mar_15:47 and Mar_16:1.
(3) About 1/3 of the significant Greek words in Mar_16:9-20 are “non-Marcan,” that is, they do not appear elsewhere in Mark or they are used differently from Mark’s usage prior to Mar_16:9.
(4) The Greek literary style lacks the vivid, lifelike detail so characteristic of Mark’s historical narrative.
(5) Mark would have been expected to include a Resurrection appearance to the disciples in Galilee (Mar_14:28; Mar_16:7), but the appearances in Mar_16:9-20 are in or near Jerusalem.
(6) Matthew and Luke parallel Mark until Mar_16:8 and then diverge noticeably, suggesting that Mark began its literary existence without Mar_16:9-20.

Equally astute and conscientious interpreters differ widely in their evaluations of this data and reach opposing conclusions. BKC

Your story how you think it is.

I remain convinced of Mark 16:9-20.

A 6 minute video.

 

[Silverhair]

Your story how you think it is.

I remain convinced of Mark 16:9-20.

A 6 minute video.

The evidence does not support your view.

 

[MMDAN]

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned.

The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then we would expect Jesus to mention it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Yet what is the 1 requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[MrW]

Back to the well-meaning, but confusing addition to the ending of Mark (added after v 8). My thoughts

Mark stopped writing his gospel account given by Peter in 16:8. We have no clue as to "why". Some suggest death of Peter or in persecution in Rime. Others then tried to "finish" his narrative since it seems so "abrupt" and not as detailed as Matthew or Luke, hence later copies of copies of copies have anywhere from one to a dozen verses of "extra" material, NOT given by inspiration of God but of fresh memories of early Christians.

When the “transmission” of Mark's account began to share it with churches around the Empire, there was a great controversy over these pious "additions" that were not in the original. Earliest copies EXCLUDE these additions or sometimes left a blank space after Mark 16:8 (unsure about the long ending). Some compiled the number of variant endings to appear as if it was a part of the original. Hence the confusion.

I opt toward the original ending in v. 8. Language, grammar, vocabulary of the pious attempts to conclude it that came CENTURIES later are not like all the rest of Mark's account, and I simply do not see them as inspired.

Yet God allowed them into His Bible.