Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

[JamesSnappJr]

Mark 16:9-20 - Position-statement

Hello everyone.

I'm late to this discussion. Sorry about that.

Has someone been questioning the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20? I affirm that Mark 16:9-20 is genuine canonical Scripture.

Please state your case to the contrary, with evidence. (Sorry if this overlaps some things already said. I would like a chance, though, to revisit and test some claimes that were presented earlier.)

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[robrecht]

Hello everyone.

I'm late to this discussion. Sorry about that.

Has someone been questioning the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20? I affirm that Mark 16:9-20 is genuine canonical Scripture.

Please state your case to the contrary, with evidence. (Sorry if this overlaps some things already said. I would like a chance, though, to revisit and test some claimes that were presented earlier.)

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Hello. Why not just read the thread rather than ask for things to be restated? Also, you may want to clarify if you mean to distinguish between authenticity (written by Mark) and canonical (recognized as scripture by the church).

[One Bad Pig]

The earliest citation would be from Irenaeus.

Okay.

That the Codex Vaticanus has the blank column can be regarded as a strong testament that the reading of Mark 16:9-20 is the older reading than that of that codex' omission.

This doesn't address my question; this only addresses the state of affairs when Codex Vaticanus was inscribed.

[RBerman]

Please state your case to the contrary, with evidence. (Sorry if this overlaps some things already said. I would like a chance, though, to revisit and test some claimes that were presented earlier.)

You are welcome to reply to posts from earlier in the thread to which you would like to respond.

[phat8594]

I am sure Phat made that comment about MacArthur because he is a very strong cessationists who condemns continuationists as heretics and the variant ending of Mark could be interpreted as charismatic.

hahaha...yep. At least someone gets where I am coming from...

[37818]

This doesn't address my question; this only addresses the state of affairs when Codex Vaticanus was inscribed.

Could you please provide that proof? What are the earliest mss which contain and omit the passage, respectively? . . .

It is my understanding the oldest manuscripts which include Mark 16:9-20 is Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and the oldest which excludes Mark 16:9-20 would be Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus.

Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus being the older set. Both having some empty column after Mark 16:8. Codex Sinaiticus empty space not being large enough to hold the longer text.

Now does this answer the question?

[One Bad Pig]

It is my understanding the oldest manuscripts which include Mark 16:9-20 is Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and the oldest which excludes Mark 16:9-20 would be Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus.

Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus being the older set. Both having some empty column after Mark 16:8. Codex Sinaiticus empty space not being large enough to hold the longer text.

Now does this answer the question?

Yes, thank you.

[37818]

The skeptic Richard Carrier, Ph.D. makes a very good plausible case against Mark 16:9-20 being authentic.
Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication
Here is my question: What in those arguments makes it impossible for Mark 16:9-20 to be part of the original Mark?

". . . They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. . . . " -- 1 John 4:5, 6. [How shall we take this?]

[One Bad Pig]

The skeptic Richard Carrier, Ph.D. makes a very good plausible case against Mark 16:9-20 being authentic.
Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication
Here is my question: What in those arguments makes it impossible for Mark 16:9-20 to be part of the original Mark?

I'm really not all that interested in what Richard Carrier has to say about the biblical text. The plausible arguments he makes have already been presented to you separately. Further, textual criticism is almost never a case of black and white, like your question pretends. In my opinion, the best argument against its inclusion as original is the complete lack of any reason to excise the material.

". . . They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. . . . " -- 1 John 4:5, 6. [How shall we take this?]

Your out of context attempt at guilt by association is noted and dismissed.

[seanD]

Richard Carrier? Really?

[37818]

. . . In my opinion, the best argument against its inclusion as original is the complete lack of any reason to excise the material.

It is my understanding that the reason Mark 16:9-20 would not be included, is that there is a transmission stream of copies that do not include it. Two transmission streams, some with the reading, and some without.

The argument is whether the transmission stream with Mark 16:9-20 being original and at some point that ending had got lost on some copy and copies were made without it, or that it was an add on, not by Mark.

[robrecht]

It is my understanding that the reason Mark 16:9-20 would not be included, is that there is a transmission stream of copies that do not include it. Two transmission streams, some with the reading, and some without.

The argument is whether the transmission stream with Mark 16:9-20 being original and at some point that ending had got lost on some copy and copies were made without it, or that it was an add on, not by Mark.

So now you're abandoning the 'foul play' theory again?

[JamesSnappJr]

One Bad Pig,
I can thing of some reasons why someone might excise Mark 16:9-20. But it's a cumulative and nuanced case; I think we would be better off rewinding a bit, before plunging into a new vein of argument. Let's revisit the external evidence. You mentioned that the testimony of Clement and Origen seems especially important to this subject, or something like that. Why?

JamesSnappJr

[JamesSnappJr]

Cowpoke (if you're still here) -
After you watch John MacArthur's sermon about "The Fitting Ending" of the Gospel of Mark, I welcome you to also watch my response to the claims that he made in that sermon. My response is at YouTube in three parts (which, cumulatively, are shorter than Dr. MacArthur's sermon). The response is "The Fitting End to Some False Claims About Mark 16:9-20."

JamesSnappJr

[seanD]

My question is, for those that reject the passage, do we still accept it as inspired since it was included in God's finished product?