The Ending of Mark

[Deacon]

One of the reasons I enjoy comparing versions and studying the original languages is that sometimes I can find things in the text that I may have otherwise missed.

I’ve enjoyed reading through the gospel of Mark this week.
I’ve learned a lot.

I've been going through a new translation by David Robert Palmer offered with select textual notes @
http://www.bibletranslation.ws/tran.html

(Note that Mark is quite a download at 141 pages).

Don't ignore the notes and appendices which are quite interesting.

Many things of interest here but most prominent in the translation of Mark is his handling of the ending.

Some may have noticed that it has different endings in the various versions.
While many versions include it most add a note along these lines, "The earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

The differences in the endings are particularly relevant when we note the recent thread “Snake handler dies from bite” [LINK] which relates to the “long” ending.

In this new work by David Robert Palmer, he offers his well considered view but then balances it by offering the work of James Snapp II in an article he wrote in 2003, with a contrasting view.

Both viewpoints are well worth the read: nothing superficial here.

I must say, I think I changed my opinion regarding the ending after reading his paper.

If you are interested in translation issues I think its well worth the time spent reading, whatever your opinion on the matter.

Let us know if you've changed your opinion after reading the paper.

Rob

 

[Keith M]

The ending of Mark's Gospel has been debated for years. And it seems reasonable that what the KJV and some other versions have as the ending if the Gospel is not the oiginal ending. It is from this ending that we get the errant beliefs in snake handling and bsptism for salvation. I have often wondered if the longer ending is really inspired by the Holy Spirit or whether the original inspired ending has been lost. We will know for sure when we get to heaven, but until then I don't think we will ever know for a certainty.

 

[Alcott]

There is a reasonable doubt as to whether Mark 16:9-20 was really included in the 'originals.' If you don't think so logically, then go ahead and handle snakes and drink poison, as well to tell anyone who was not baptized that the act itself will save them; i.e., tell someone that if they repent and believe in Christ, then get shot dead on their way to the baptistry, that they will go to hell.

 

[Keith M]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[AVBunyan]

Right Division

Rightly dividing the word of truth (II Tim. 2:15) clears the end of Mark up. The message is tied to the Jewish kingdom message. Back then (Gospels) the disciples/apostles were protected - Those gifts/signs were for Jews (I Cor. 1:22; 14:22). Those signs and gifts have passed off the scene for God has since called Paul to usher in the age that deals with the body of Christ where signs are no longer in place because God is nto dealing with Israel as a nation.

Now if you do not take the view above (and I have a funny feeling you will not) then your only other recourse is to spiritualize the passage ror do what most of modern christianity is doing today and that is to just take it slap out of the NT. Or you can even do what some charismatic folks have done - applied it doctrinally to you today and die of poison and snake bites like some of those folks have! :BangHead:

Folks - just because we do not understand a passage doesnt mean it doesn't belong there or is wrong.

Yes, I'm sure you can find some manuscripts which show the verses are absent but are those manuscripts your authority or the book in your hands?

I believe the verses stand just like they read - they are not doctrinally for you today.

Final thought - if you were to take out those last verse you would be left with:
Mark 16:11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

Let's be practical here. Wouldn't that be a strange way to end a gospel?

God bless

 

[tinytim]

Just as strange is the 2 accounts of the resurrection in this chapter.
vrs 1-8 covers 1 account,

Then it seems like it starts all over again in verse 9.

I have heard it said that the book of Mark may be Peters account of the Gospel, and Mark wrote it after travelling and hearing Peter's messages.

If the book of Mark is actually a summary of what Peter preached, then maybe the two endings are two different ways Peter ended his story.

Maybe God wanted both endings.

 

[StefanM]

I don't have time to read that article at this time, but I do not accept v. 9-20 as valid, nor do I accept the "shorter ending" of Mark:



And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. (NRSV)

 

[Jerome]

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?

 

[Deacon]

After a bit of searching I found this website offered by James Snapp Jr. which presents a rich source of documentary material on the problem.
ENJOY

The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-13

Rob

 

[Keith M]

Of the two supporters of the longer ending of Mark we have one who says the longer ending of the Gospel was directed toward the Jews while the other says the longer ending of the Gospel was directed toward the Apostles. It is quite obvious that even those who agree the longer ending of the Gospel is legitimate do not agree on who it was directed toward. If the longer ending really is an inspired part of the Gospel account,to whom was it really directed?

 

[bound]

Of the two supporters of the longer ending of Mark we have one who says the longer ending of the Gospel was directed toward the Jews while the other says the longer ending of the Gospel was directed toward the Apostles. It is quite obvious that even those who agree the longer ending of the Gospel is legitimate do not agree on who it was directed toward. If the longer ending really is an inspired part of the Gospel account,to whom was it really directed?

All of us. :saint:

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I'm sure you can find some manuscripts which show the verses are absent but are those manuscripts your authority or the book in your hands?...

On the face of it, this would seem a completely absurd statement.

It needs to be clarified that these manuscripts (which you do not accept as authoritative) are not the same ones used for translation of your authoritative book.

Yes (to your question); the extant manuscripts are our only 'authoritative' material resources. In essence, this a matter of preferring one set of recovered manuscripts rather than another. It is not "manuscripts" versus "book". Translations are just a reflection of the source manuscripts. Perhaps some folks do not care to admit that manuscripts are necessarily their authority, too.

And if manuscripts were not rare (valuable), fragile, and less convenient than bound documents, you would be wise to insist upon having those tangible writings "in your hands." Without owning the actual physical evidence, we entrust capable archeologists, scientists, textual critics, and curators.

But if we did have those manuscripts, to read them would require knowledge of the original languages in which they were recorded. Without possessing ancient linguistic skills, we entrust faithful publishers, translators, editors, and printers.

 

[AVBunyan]

On the face of it, this would seem a completely absurd statement....the extant manuscripts are our only 'authoritative' material resources.

Could you prove that those manuscripts you trust match the originals?

 

[Deacon]

Has anyone read the translation and the notes yet?

There is a lot of meat on each side of the argument: all I see here is spoiled milk.

Rob

 

[Eliyahu]

Which manuscripts have the shorter ending ?
Among 619 manuscripts, 617 have the longer endings, even including A, C.
Then only 2 have the shorter endings, B and Aleph.
B( Vatican Text) is the problematic as it contains lots of modification to satisfy the whorish Roman Catholic theory.
Aleph is a little more than garbage found in the monastry. If anyone publish NT based on Aleph, it will be real gargbage!

If anyone cannot believe in the Words of God, if anyone do not have the faith to believe about the snakes etc, is that Word of God wrong?
If we cannot believe in the Noah's Flood in Genesis, should we remove it?

Satan succeeded in using Serpent in Genesis 3, then tried to use that tactic again in Acts 28:4-6, but the man of God, Paul, redeemed by the blood of Christ, overcame it triumphantly.
Did you hear about the story of David Livingstone when he pitched a tent in
africa and the venomous snake came in ?
If your faith doesn't reach what the true Words of God says, then should the part of Bible eliminated ?

You may be worshipping your own god, not the True and Only God who wrote the teachings of Jesus in the longer endings of Mark 16.

 

[AVBunyan]

Has anyone read the translation and the notes yet?
There is a lot of meat on each side of the argument: all I see here is spoiled milk.
Rob

I was trying to be polite - Ok, I'll tell you what I believe after looking at your material and what I've read over the years though I am no expert or care to be an expert in manuscriipt evidence.

The ending of Mark is there in the texts the KJV came from - the ending is not there in most of the manuscripts that most of the new versions come from.

Conclsion - the last 9 verses are legit and to question them is sad.

What willl be questiioned next? John 14:6 and I Cor 15:1-5 and others?

God bless

 

[Keith M]

Could you prove that those manuscripts you trust match the originals?

Could you prove that the manuscripts you trust match the originals? Hint: the answer is "no." The original autographs no longer exist, so there is absolutely no proof that any particular manuscripts match the originals. :laugh: :BangHead: :sleeping_2:

 

[AVBunyan]

" The original autographs no longer exist, so there is absolutely no proof that any particular manuscripts match the originals.

My point exactly - either you take by faith what you have in your hands today or not.

Problem is - how can multiple and conflicting versions all be the 'word of God"? I thought if you are going to call them the "word of God" then they must be error free for God's words are error free for he is God. I think since many of you foks believe all versions have error then you need to come up with a new name like:
Tte book that conatins some or many of God's words or whatever. But then you get into which ones are God's words and then you are right where this forum is and many others - which words are God's words?

My life is simple - no Greek/Hebrew (for there are many conflicting to choose from), no multiple versions - just one book - a simple King James Bible.

God bless

 

[Gold Dragon]

Problem is - how can multiple and conflicting versions all be the 'word of God"?

You answer this question below with a good example,

My life is simple - no Greek/Hebrew (for there are many conflicting to choose from), no multiple versions - just one book - a simple King James Bible.

God bless

The Greek/Hebrew manuscripts used to translate the KJV were multiple and conflicting as well. But the compilers of those manuscripts believed they were all the "Word of God".

 

[franklinmonroe]

Could you prove that those manuscripts you trust match the originals?

My point was meant to go beyond just the scope of this particular discussion.

In other words: How would you build a Bible without manuscripts? You can't!

Again, every English translation is just a reflection of its source material (usually can be traced back to multiple manuscripts in ancient languages). Therefore, this is really a discussion about which manuscripts an individual accepts as valid.

But most of us (especially myself) are not of expert scholarship to argue the finer points of the manuscript evidence. We are all trusting others.