What Happened to the last twelve verses of Mark

[Crabtownboy]

Well is it in " The Originals? " That is the only question that really matters. We do know, no one has seen the Original of the book of Mark it's hard to know what was in the Original of Mark or not. We all know only the Original of each book was inspired, therefore everything else is just a copy. All copies have error. So it is hard to know what is scripture and what is not scripture. You just have to take it by faith.


Original

Nope, not in the oldest texts. Some scribe/priest added them later for some reason. Nothing about these verses hang with any other verses in the entire Bible.

I wonder if they are in the Bible the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic, etc. churches use?

 

[Original]

I wonder if they are in the Bible the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic, etc. churches use?

Well that does not matter if they are in the GO, RO C or ect. None of the above listed is the Original of the book of Mark. they are only copies and translations. As we all know only the Original of each book was inspired. Either you accept Mark 16:9 - 20 or you do not accept it. Their is evidence that it should not be in the book of Mark and there is evidence that it should not be in the book of Mark.

I do not accept it ( end of mark 16 ) as scripture because it is not in the oldest manuscripts. That being said even the oldest manuscripts are not God's inspired Word, they are not the Originals and that we know for sure.

Original

 

[CubeX]

AntennaFarmer, what appears to be faded words on that picture are from the other side of the page. I've looked through parts of these volumes before and it does happen.

Moving on, I'd just like to say that we do know that some of the church fathers did quote this section. However there are two concerns that stand out in my mind regarding this passage:

1) Origen didn't quote from it. And boy he quoted a lot. However, it must be noted that Origen is thought to have taught in Alexandria. If the manuscripts that Sinaiticus is derived from were in the same form, then this is a logical conclusion as to why he never quoted the verses.

2) The part about picking up snakes and drinking poison are strange. Nowhere else in the NT is this taught. Although Paul did shake a viper off of himself, we don't read about Paul inforcing this idea.

If Mark 16:9-20 was added later (which seems likely), then it wasn't that far it wasn't too long after the original composition that it was added and it seems to (for the most part) reflect the common understanding of the church. Also, if it was added, then it represents a localized occurance.

The real problem is that we (meaning the vast majority of Christians) worship the Bible too much as tend to gloss over the intended message of each of the letters and books. We like to cut and paste passages to inforce our own ideas without even realizing it.

- Dave

 

[JerryL]

There was a conference on this in 2007. I remember some NT scholars on another board I used to read went to it. I never did hear a conclusion they came to.
The last twelves verses of Mark

Here is a view of a man that was there at the conference. Theological Musings
And another here. Alan Knox Blog

 

[Keith M]

I still don't have any manuscripts to check, but just checked my Bibles again, this morning.

Yup!

Mark 16: 9-20 is still there in every last one of 'em.

Don't know what happened to whatever Bibles some others are checking.

Ed

StudyLight (www.studylight.org) has 40 English Bible versions (42 if you count KJV and NAS versions with Strong's numbers), 2 English New Testaments, 2 Spanish Bibles, and one Old Tesgtament-only Jewish translation. Out of all these, only the Jewish OT translation (for obvious reasons), the Updated Bible Version 1.9 and the Emphasized Version (aka the Rotherham Version) lack the verses in question. The translators of these modern versions apparently chose not to add what they felt was added at a point in time well after the original writings were penned. As the oldest and thus most reliable manuscripts don't contain these verses, and as these verses teach things not taught elsewhere in the Bible (handling of snakes, drinking of poison, and salvation by baptism), I don't place much stock in the belief the verses were in the original. I belive they were added at some point (or points) in time by one or more well-meaning scribes as they copied either the original or more likely copies of copies of copies of copies (you get my meaning) of the original. After all, God promised to preserve His word (His message to us) - not that every copy of a copy of a copy would be perfect and without human error of any kind.

 

[robycop3]

These verses form the basis for the beliefs(excuses) of the snake-handlers' cult, one gang of which is located about 25 miles from my home. Some of'em useta work in the steel mill where I work, & the same cats who would handle a big diamondback rattler with their hands wouldn't jump into a vat of molten steel, even when i reminded them of Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego. yet another phony cult, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof", stood exposed. but they still refused to accept those 12 verses might not be legitimate Scripture.

Guess they believe "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" only so far.

 

[tinytim]

Those verses are an alternative resurrection story...

Verse 9 restarts the resurrection story.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The narrative found in the last 12 verses of Mark could be constructed more-or-less from other Gospel passages and accounts in Acts.
For example, the information given in Mark 16:9-10 (KJV) --

Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, (see Mt. 28:1, Lk 24:1, & Jn 20:1+19) he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, (see Mt. 28:1, Lk 24:10 & Jn 20:1) out of whom he had cast seven devils. (see Lk 8:2)
[And] she went and told them that had been with him, (see Mt 28:8, Lk 24:10 & Jn 20:2+18) as they mourned and wept (see Lk 24:17 & implied in Jn 20:20)​

Others are --

Mark 16:11 see Lk 24:11
Mark 16:12-13 see Lk 24:13-35
Mark 16:14 see Lk 24:36-43 & Jn 20:19-23
Mark 16:15 see Mt 28:16-20
Mark 16:16 see Jn 3:18+36
Mark 16:17 see Acts 3:1-10, 5:12, 6:8, 9:32-43, 13:6-12, 19:6+11, 16:16-18, others
Mark 16:18* see Mt 9:35, Mk 6:13, Lk 10:9 & Acts 28:3-6, 19:12
Mark 16:19 see Mt 26:64 & Acts 1:1-9
Mark 16:20 see many examples in Acts​

*The major exception without a direct parallel is the statement "and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them" in middle of verse 18; but perhaps even this could be explained by Luke 10:7 (KJV) --

And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.​

 

[EdSutton]

These verses form the basis for the beliefs(excuses) of the snake-handlers' cult, one gang of which is located about 25 miles from my home. Some of'em useta work in the steel mill where I work, & the same cats who would handle a big diamondback rattler with their hands wouldn't jump into a vat of molten steel, even when i reminded them of Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego. yet another phony cult, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof", stood exposed. but they still refused to accept those 12 verses might not be legitimate Scripture.

Guess they believe "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" only so far.

You gotta' go about 25 miles??

"I can 'name that tune, 'er I mean church' in less than 10 notes - er, miles - less than 10 MILES!"

BTW, I bet they as a group, those you know won't drink cyanide or strychnine laced water, either.

Never actually been inside the church in my "neck of the woods", so I'm not really sure of whether they believe in "OSAS" or in "BYOS"?

Ed

 

[Jerome]

*The major exception without a direct parallel is the statement "and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them" in middle of verse 18; but perhaps even this could be explained by Luke 10:7

or, from the OT: 2 Kings 4:38ff:
(sons of the prophets protected; partook of poisoned pottage)

 

[franklinmonroe]

or, from the OT: 2 Kings 4:38ff:
(sons of the prophets protected; partook of poisoned pottage)

Thanks, Jerome. And I came across this verse today in my daily reading (Luke 10:19, KJV)--

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.​

 

[Lukasaurus]

Let's get down some facts

The passage is not contained in the Alexandrian texts, minuscule 2386, the Syrian Sinaitic Version, and a few other translations.

Those are facts that I won't argue with. It's not in the Alexandrian texts, or Codex Sinaiticus.

Here are some more, hopefully that YE (you all) won't argue with -

It is in many of the Greek uncials (A, C, D, K, X, D, Q, and P) dating between the fifth and ninth centuries.

It is also contained in later dated Greek minuscules (137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, and 1582).

It is the reading found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic versions and other early translations.

Finally, it is cited (at least in part) by many of the early church fathers such as Justin (165 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) and Augustine (430 AD)


That last one is the most damning to modern textual criticism. Just as Cyprian quotes 1 John 5:7 1200 years before it was supposedly written, here we have Justin Marytr, Tertullian, and Hippolytus quoting Mark 16:9-20 a few hundred years before it was supposedly added.


http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_mr16_9-20.html

 

[robycop3]

Let's get down some facts

The passage is not contained in the Alexandrian texts, minuscule 2386, the Syrian Sinaitic Version, and a few other translations.

Those are facts that I won't argue with. It's not in the Alexandrian texts, or Codex Sinaiticus.

Here are some more, hopefully that YE (you all) won't argue with -

It is in many of the Greek uncials (A, C, D, K, X, D, Q, and P) dating between the fifth and ninth centuries.

It is also contained in later dated Greek minuscules (137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, and 1582).

It is the reading found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic versions and other early translations.

Finally, it is cited (at least in part) by many of the early church fathers such as Justin (165 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) and Augustine (430 AD)


That last one is the most damning to modern textual criticism. Just as Cyprian quotes 1 John 5:7 1200 years before it was supposedly written, here we have Justin Marytr, Tertullian, and Hippolytus quoting Mark 16:9-20 a few hundred years before it was supposedly added.


http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_mr16_9-20.html

But notice that none of them lived when any Scripture was actually written. It's a gap of a coupla generations. Even Justin coulda added them.