Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

    Hey guys,
    I recently read that some scholars believe that Mark 16:9-20 was added at a later date...I have looked around on the web but really don't see any clear answers and I am not one to read pages of debating or literature or whatever. I like to get right to the point and the proof which no one seems to do. It seems everyone likes to go on and on and on so I thought maybe someone here can tell me.
    I was looking to see if there is like original jewish manuscripts or catholic manuscripts or something that could give a clear answer.
    I saw that other verses in other books support the ending but then some disagree with that as well.
    so if it is not the original ending is there any evidence of who may have added this ending?

    thanks for any insight :)

  • #2
    The manuscript evidence supports the idea that 16,9-20 is not authentic, the style is not really Markan, and the transition from verse 8 to 9 is awkward. There's also a shorter ending that is found in some manuscripts that is also considered inauthentic, and some manuscripts have both the longer and shorter endings. The two oldest manuscripts (which are not that old, BTW) are blank here, as are some early versions, while other mss have a space or scribal marks indicating some type of anomally. You still run across some scholars that think the original ending was lost, but the majority of critical scholars think that 16,8 was the original ending. A few people argue that the longer ending is authentic but they have not convinced many other scholars. I think most churches still consider it inspired and part of the canon even if it was not written by Mark.
    Last edited by robrecht; 02-09-2014, 11:33 PM.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #3
      What robrecht said (though I'll note that "not that old" is in relation to MSS for the other gospels).
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #4
        One thing I'm curious about: At what point did the longer ending become generally adopted?
        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

        Comment


        • #5
          It was already known in the 2nd century so it is quite old.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            It was already known in the 2nd century so it is quite old.
            Which is older than our earliest manuscripts for this text. At least that is my understanding.


            Which of course is one of the big reasons this text is under such dispute....especially when we consider it is quoted by the ECF (so it at least seems that the EC thought of it as inspired / original)


            So can we really know with certainty at this point? Eh...not really, although certain scholars have their reasons for believing either way.


            Of course if I were a betting man, I'd bet to think John MacArthur has to think it is not part of the original..

            Comment


            • #7
              In my early preaching years, I came across this "revelation", and wasn't familiar at all with textual criticism. Quite honestly, at first, I thought this was "the beginning of the onslaught" of attacks against the authenticity of the Bible in whole, but checked it out with some of my professors. I was greatly relieved that men I respected greatly agreed this was most likely "tacked on", and the advice was "never build your whole theology on one passage of scripture -- ESPECIALLY that one".
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                In my early preaching years, I came across this "revelation", and wasn't familiar at all with textual criticism. Quite honestly, at first, I thought this was "the beginning of the onslaught" of attacks against the authenticity of the Bible in whole, but checked it out with some of my professors. I was greatly relieved that men I respected greatly agreed this was most likely "tacked on", and the advice was "never build your whole theology on one passage of scripture -- ESPECIALLY that one".
                Those poor snake handlers.
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  Those poor snake handlers.
                  Yeah, well... if there had to be a passage that was "suspect", that's a good'n.

                  (but they're prolly all KJOnliests, eh?)
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    Those poor snake handlers.
                    Don't forget about this one:

                    Scripture Verse: Mark 16:15-16

                    And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

                    © Copyright Original Source




                    errr....wait!


                    But in all seriousness, I am still somewhat agnostic about this text simply because it was included in the ECF writings...which at least gives it some good credibility of being considered part of the canon.

                    That being said, textual variants really have never been much of a stumbling block to me. They are to be expected, IMO, when you get humans involved with the whole tansmission process.

                    And I definitely agree that we should not make a whole theology on one verse...as usually that means neglecting everything else while taking a verse out of context. The perfect example is the snake handlers....even if we are to consider this section legitimate, I hardly think the point of the passage is to tell Christians to pick up snakes just for the fun of it. Rather it is that miraculous signs will follow those who believe in the confirmation of the gospel.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                      Which is older than our earliest manuscripts for this text. At least that is my understanding.

                      Which of course is one of the big reasons this text is under such dispute....especially when we consider it is quoted by the ECF (so it at least seems that the EC thought of it as inspired / original)

                      So can we really know with certainty at this point? Eh...not really, although certain scholars have their reasons for believing either way.

                      Of course if I were a betting man, I'd bet to think John MacArthur has to think it is not part of the original..
                      To the extent that one feels familar with the text, style, structure, and theology of Mark's gospel, that will be the level of confidence one has in making this judgment call. I've been reading the gospel of Mark in Greek for 35 years and, personally, I have no doubt, but it is a judgment call and no one is infallible. The overwhelmingly vast majority of critical scholars are agreed that 16,9-20 is not original so I do not think there is much dispute about this, apart from Textus Receptus zealots and KJV only-ists.

                      Who is John MacArthur, by the way?
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                        I hardly think the point of the passage is to tell Christians to pick up snakes just for the fun of it.
                        What??? -drops snakes- Aw maaaaan...

                        "Fire is catching. If we burn, you burn with us!"
                        "I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and cause all kinds of trouble."
                        Katniss Everdeen


                        Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          Who is John MacArthur, by the way?
                          He's a fairly well known Reformed pastor in conservative circles. He has published a study bible with his notes. He's on the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary, IIRC.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            He's a fairly well known Reformed pastor in conservative circles. He has published a study bible with his notes. He's on the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary, IIRC.
                            Thanks. I guess what I'm really wondering why phat 'would bet that he has to think it is not part of the original'?
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think MacArthur is on board as it being a "variant"....

                              From a sermon by MacArthur on Mark 16:9-20

                              You say, “Why in the world are you telling us all this? Are you enjoying it? Is it helpful? Okay. Why am I telling you this? Because here we are at the end of Mark and we’ve got this long textual variance on the end of Mark that we know did not appear in the original autograph written by Mark. That’s why it’s in brackets.

                              And, by the way, look at the bottom of the page after verse 20 wherever you are, do you see another paragraph there in different type? That’s another ending that showed up…a short one. So you have a long one, and a short one.

                              Why is this here? If it’s not in the original, why is it here?

                              Well, I think there’s a pretty obvious answer. Verse 8, remember verse 8 from this morning? This is Mark’s closing statement. “They went out and fled from the tomb for trembling and astonishment had gripped them and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid…period.” That’s it.
                              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by seer, 10-21-2020, 12:37 PM
                              2 responses
                              40 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Faber, 10-13-2020, 03:13 PM
                              4 responses
                              26 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Faber
                              by Faber
                               
                              Started by Christian3, 10-09-2020, 08:37 AM
                              33 responses
                              194 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Andius
                              by Andius
                               
                              Started by mossrose, 10-07-2020, 08:10 PM
                              6 responses
                              36 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mossrose  
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 09-26-2020, 07:50 PM
                              0 responses
                              6 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Working...
                              X