Mark 16:9-20

Excellent! Let's treat this with the seriousness it deserves. Let's stay on topic. Nonsense will be deleted.

 

Let me give you a short answer and give you a better one when I have a little more time. In the earliest and best mss, Mark 16:9-20 is not found. Theories abound as to the addition of this, one of which being that ending the gospel at v. 8 would be rough. There is the argument, as you pointed out, that the language is not Markan and that some of the verses would raise suspicious practices not known to the early church nor to NT Christianity. It should be noted that there is also an additional ending to the book of Mark, found in notes in the NASB and ESV. More to come...

 

Heard speculation through the years that the true ending of Mark was lost and 8 thru 20 added later to give a resurrection appearance to go with the other Gospels. If this is true, I wonder how it would be handled if somehow another manuscript was unearthed which would be more likely to be the correct match. As I dont speak Greek and probably never will, I await the opinion of the linguists and manuscript experts.

 

but before seeking others' opinions, perhaps it's good to look at what was preserved in 4 different endings: http://www.letsdiscussjesus.org/mark_16920.htm

 

Just a couple of quick points to help get the discussion going. The "oldest and best" argument is a straw man in this instance. "Oldest" is arguable regarding the MSS containing the last chapter of Mark (the lectionaries dating to the mid 2nd century contain the reading), and "best" is simply subjective opinion. "Best" really doesn't mean anything. The two MSS usually refered to as "best" are Aleph and B, which are not "best" when compared to one another for they disagree over 3000 times in the gospels alone. They are not "best" when examined individually for they are covered with corrections, strike outs, erasures, over-writes, etc. Refering to Aleph and B as "best" is a logical error known as "poisoning the well." It attemps to stop the discussion before it has even begun by suggesting that the use of any MSS evidence other than Aleph and B, which the debater will call "best" is to rely on second rate evidence than thus a defective and inferior arguement based on second rate and inferior evidence!

As to the actual evidence for not including Mark 16:9-20, only three MSS omit the reading, Aleph, B, and 2386. Aleph and B date to the mid 4th century and 2386 dates to the 12th century.

The MSS giving evidence for the canonicity of verses 9-20 are A, C, D, K, X, Δ, Ω, Π, f13 (a whole family of MSS), 28, 33, 274, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1230, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174, all the Byzantine MSS, as well as most lectionaries, and most of the ancient vernaculars. If you include the MSS which contain the reading with an editors mark such as an asterisk, obeli, or other critical note you would have to include f1 (another whole family of MSS), 137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, 1241, and 1582.

The early Patristics bear witness to these verses. As previously noted the early vernaculars contain the verses. The MSS evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of these verses. The Lectionaries support these verses. And, even one of the "oldest and best" witnesses, B, gives testimony to these verses! Vaticanus (B) which is older than Aleph by perhaps as much as 25 years, has a vacant column at the end of Mark, the only vacant column in the entire codex! The length of the vacant column is exactly as long as the disputed verses! The copyist of B was aware of these verses, even though they seem to have been missing from his exemplar, probably due to the fact that in the early canon Mark was the last gospel, and the last page of his exemplar was missing! But, he left room for the reading to be inserted later when he had a complete exemplar to copy from!

So, from the evidence it seems obvious to me that the last 12 verses of Mark are, in fact, part of the canon, which was inadvertantly deleted from just 3 MSS, and that deletion is easily explainable if B was copied from an exemplar missing the last page, and Aleph continued this error, as did 2386.

My conclusion, Mark 16:9-20 is, in fact, part of the canon with such overwhelming evidence supporting it that no honest student of the bible who has actually studied the evidence can dismiss.

[ May 26, 2002, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

Doc Cassidy writes:
"My conclusion, Mark 16:9-20 is, in fact, part of the canon with such overwhelming evidence supporting it that no honest student of the bible who has actually studied the evidence can dismiss."

Curious as to whether it is possible to tell if the vocabulary and style is consistant in the greek from 9 thru 20 as with the rest of the gospel? I understand even if it isn't, there could be numerous reasons for it.
Thanks

 

The style of phraseology of verses 9-20 of chapter 16 is shown by the examination of 27 particulars to be the same as the style and phraseology of chapter 1:9-20.

For an indepth study of the style and phraseology argument see Burgon's "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark" chapter IX.

 

If anyone is convinced that Mark 16:9-20 are genuine, then the obvious question is: Do you carry it out?... Do you speak with other languages? Do you cast out demons? Do you drink poison and are unharmed by it? The passage says these thingS shall be the signs of those who believe. Of course, first it says those who believe AND are baptized shall be saved. So, as I have asked 'Church of Christ'ers and Catholics: If a person believes in Jesus Christ, then a sniper shoots him dead on his way to the baptistry, is he eternally lost [that is, damned to hell]?

 

First, the sign gifts did follow the believers of that day and the promise of drinking poison and handling deadly snakes without harm was fulfilled in the book of Acts.

And the construct "believeth and is baptised shall be saved" does sound a bit odd to the 21st century ear but to the 17th century reader the meaning was quite clear. It was the believing, not the baptism, which saved.

This entire section of Mark is a series of alternations. </font>

• 15:40, 41 Women, several, followed by their actions</font>
• 15:47 Women, two, followed by their actions.</font>

Then we see, starting in Chapter 16,</font>

• 1 After the high sabbath, bought spices, went to the tomb, saw the stone, sought the body</font>

Then in verse 9</font>

• Verse 9, His appearance to Mary, 10, her report, 11 the disciples unbelief</font>
• Verse 12, His appearance to two disciples, 13 their report, 13 the disciples unbelief</font>

Then in verses 14-20 we see a continuation of these alterations</font>

• 14 After the Lord had risen, 15-18 the commission</font>
• 19 After the Lord has ascended, 20 obedience</font>

What is important is to see what the main point of each alternation is, especially the contrasts. In the first instance it was witness/unbelief then in the second set we see His action/their response. Now, within the alternations we see other, smaller alternations in the context of each greater alternation. In verse 16 the alternation is believeth/believeth not. In the following verses we see the alternation condition/result, and finally in verse 19, heaven/earth, Christ seated/disciples working. It is very important to look at these passages in the manner in which they were written, to diagram the sentences, and look at the Hebraistic alternations and contrasts to gain a proper understanding.
To argue against the massive MSS evidence on the basis of our doctrinal presuppositions, and especially when our argument is unsound grammatically, is pretty shakey ground.

[ May 27, 2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

I believe the section is canonical, although it may not be Markan. Schaff says this:

See http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc1/htm/i.XII.81.htm

 

One of the pertinent issues in OT critical study is that of unity and authenticity ... i.e., was the book written entirely by the author whose name it bears. A cornerstone of conservative scholarship is that unity and authenticity is a must in Scripture. The same is held in NT authorship with regards to the critical scholars who attribute non-Pauline authorship (or Petrine) to the epistles that bear their names.

The question is, how much addition are we comfortable with before we cross the line into critical scholarship. If Mark didn't write these verses, what are the effects of that on Markan authorship and the related areas of study?

 

Hey,

I hate to stick my nose into this scholarly debate, but I'd like to point out something that I know a lot of people won't want to hear about the passage in question: GOD PRESERVED IT. So, instead of trying to guess who might have written it (which we can't know; and even if it wasn't Mark, this doesn't make it non-cannonical: Psalms was written by different people, so is it non-cannonical???), why not just trust God to have preserved his word?

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Did He? That's the question we try to answer through textual criticism. People claim God preserved the Apocrypha, BoM, etc.

To others: Let's stp with the "poisoned well" bit and stick to the facts.

 

Did He?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. That fact has been so well documented on this thread already I'm amazed that anyone could doubt it. God preserved it, man's "textual criticism" or not. Why not just trust God?

 

Bartholomew,

The difficulty for your position is that God preserved a number of manuscripts without it as well. Thus, we must make decisions between differing manuscripts that God preserved. I think this point is quite often overlooked by the KJVOnly people. Everything we have, from Aleph, B and right on down have been preserved by God. If he hadn't preserved them, we wouldn't have them.

 

I posted the facts Tom, and the identity of the Logical Fallacy used in your post. I don't make up the terms. If you don't like them, take it up with Cedarblom and Paulsen!

 

What posts? And what makes you think I was talking about you? Feeling guilty, eh Thomas? Under conviction?

Hopefully I'll get some time tomorrow to post more in depth on this topic. Hope Y'all had a great holiday.

[ May 27, 2002, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

No, Tom. I was the only one to use the term, and I used it in reference to the term "oldest and best" which you posted. How can I feel "guilty" about something YOU did? The whole purpose of this discussion is to try to determine based on the EVIDENCE which group of MSS is, in fact, "best!" When you short circuit the discussion by claiming that two of the three which omit the reading are "best" it is called the Logical Fallacy of Prejudicial Language, also called "poisoning the well." It is a term from logic, not a personal attack. Don't take yourself so seriously!

 

First, see Bartholomew's post for well poisioning. Second, You DID do this when you refered to arguing against your "so-called massive evidence" so you were right in feeling guilty Third, if it will make you feel better, I'll just use the phrase "Oldest & commonly believed best mss" from now on, but only if you'll drop your logical fallacies (Besides, calling these mss the oldest and best is hardly a fallacy. It is an opinion substantiated by much evidence that has been debated ad infinitim ad nauseum). But again, if it will make your "feel bads" stop hurting as the young folks say today, I'll be happy to oblige Four, chill out Thomas - it's a holiday! Nobody said anything about personal attacks til you did. Take some breaths, and let's get back on topic!

[ May 27, 2002, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]