Mark 16:9-20

[Guest]

What are the views on whether this is reliable, or part of original text, etc?

Tx

Les

[Guest]

Ok.. since nobody is biting on my original post...

A friend of mine (we both attend the Vineyard) noticed that the end of Mark might not be genuine. It really disturbed him b/c he figured, if its in the Bible, it must be God's word. I explained that we don't have original documents, but pieces and people try their best to guess at what the original was. I said that the end might not be original, but that if it was accepted by the early church and if nothing in it contradicts other scripture, its probably fine to use. Since I can't authoritatively state that it was original (and don't really have an opinion on it yet), I figure it is safe not to use it as a major proof text for theological positions.

That being said, the reason we were talking about it is because it kind of has a 'signs and wonders' slant to the gospel that we're supposed to be spreading.

So, I guess any comments on whether it should be accepted at par with the rest of the NT would be appreciated.

Or, feel free to comment on the apparent difference between the way the great commission is given as compared to in Matt.

Thanks.

[Guest]

Les,

The commission is also given in Luke 24:46-47, and also there is a commissioning described in John 20:21-23.

There being nothing in Mark 16:9-20 that is in conflict with the rest of the New Testament, it is at least as easy for me to believe a portion is missing between vv. 8 & 9 as it is to believe 9-20 is an addition.

[Guest]

I'm not sure but I seem to remember someone saying that the early church fathers quoted from these verses. This would seem to show that they were most likely original.

[Guest]

Martin Luther rejected the book of James and called it a "book of straw". Should we throw the book of James away also?

[Guest]

I thought the following notes on Mark 16:9-20 from The NET Bible was informative. The translators of the NET Bible have included the passage in The NET Bible because "the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text".

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B).

The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point.

Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9–20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Θ f13 33 2427 M lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102–6).

All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9–20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark.

There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”

[Guest]

I always thought that Mark 16:16 was questionable.

"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemed."

It seems like it is saying that baptism is a condition of salvation. This would be why I think that it is not part of the original manuscript.

[Guest]

I think it's legit and my guess is that Peter wrote it. I think that when Peter stayed with Mark (Acts 12) he dictated the gospel to Mark who wrote it. There are a lot of insignificant little details that only an eye witness could know plus Mark calls Caiaphas "the high priest" five times instead of calling him by name which he most likely would have done if he wrote it after Caiaphas's term ended in 37AD. The writing style at the end of Mark is brief and direct which is Peter's style so i'm thinking he went back and added it later.

[Guest]

Dolphin, the scriptures as well as second-century Christian writers tell us that regeneration normally takes place at baptism. When we go under the water, it not only symbolizes our death to the old nature, but inwardly we die to self. When we emerge out of that water, it not only symbolizes a resurrection to a new life in Christ, but inwardly, we actually rise up in our new life in Christ.

With regards to Mark 16:9-20, let me say that I possess a book containing ALL of the extant manuscripts up to the year 300 A.D. and the passage does not appear in any of them. Of course, that is no proof that it was not written by Mark in his original. For it may have become lost for awhile, or it may have been destroyed from all the early manuscripts which we now possess.

As for early Christian writers quoting from it, the "Apostolic Fathers" (Clement, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabus, and Papias) did not quote it. Justin Martyr did not quote from it.

However, Irenaeus, [A.D. 120-202] quoted Mark 16:19! So, whether or not it was part of Mark's original gospel, it must have existed quite early.

[Guest]

Paidion
I see what you are saying about baptizm. I suppose since I was baptized at a young age, 8, I didn't really feel any different from "the old me and the new me."

The issue I had with Mark 16:16 is that it implies that you might not be saved if, for whatever reason, you were not baptized. I don't think that salvation hinges on wheater or not you are baptized.

As far as the book you mentioned... what book is it and where can someone get it. It sounds interesting.