Is Mark 16:9-20 Scripture?

Hamalas · #1 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 04:22 PM

So I'm curious to see what y'all think about the validity of Mark 16:9-20. Is this part of Scripture or was it added by man?

rbcbob · #2 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamalas

So I'm curious to see what y'all think about the validity of Mark 16:9-20. Is this part of Scripture or was it added by man?

Ben, the answer to that question depends upon one's persuasion of textual critical persuasion. If you are convinced by the modern textual theories which are largely held today then you would be of the opinion that this passage was added by some later copiest and therefore not inspired.

If, however, you are persuaded that the Byzantine text tradition (far and away the majority of extant manuscripts) then you would be convinced that this passage is inspired Scripture.

**Prufrock** · #3 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 04:39 PM

Our confessional tradition certainly seems to think so: see WCF 7:3; 8:4; 17:3; 28:4; WSC 28; WLC 35; 51; 60; 63. Also, see HC 71. And they were certainly aware of the circumstances regarding this section of scripture.

**BobVigneault** · #4 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 04:45 PM

I say 'NO' and it was probably Photoshopped by a tech minded amanuensis.

**Marrow Man** · #5 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 04:46 PM

Part of the reason behind the exclusion involves more than manuscript tradition. There are discrepancies in the vocabulary of those verses that are noticeably different than the rest of Mark. However, it must also be conceded that it is an short passage and it may be a bit much to place so much emphasis on so few verses in order to warrant a conclusion of exclusion.

Hamalas · #6 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 04:57 PM

I'm in unfamiliar waters here (being both a layman and a young man) so I am very open to rebuke in this matter. The reason I am raising this question (and the reason I think that Mark 16:9-20 is not part of Scripture) is because of a chapter I recently read by Daniel Doriani. Here is what he had to say about this passage:

Quote:

[T]here is strong evidence against the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. First, the two earliest, complete manuscripts of the Gospels, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, lack the passage. Because of their early date and reputation for accuracy, these are widely regarded as two of the best witnesses to the original text of the New Testament. Second, while only a few later manuscripts omit the passage, many mark it with asterisks or marginal comments, indicating that older Greek copies lacked the passage. Third, some early manuscripts of Mark in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian lack 16:9-20. Fourth, Eusebius, the greatest historian of the early church, and Jerome, the greatest linguist of the early church, both judged the text to be spurious. One of Jerome's epistles says, "Almost all the Greek codices do not have this concluding portion." Eusebius said that accurate copies of Mark ended with verse 8 and that 16:9-20 was missing from almost all manuscripts. Thus, Jerome and Eusebius were aware of many copies, now lost, that lacked Mark 16:9-20. Fifth, such early theologians as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem never refer to the longer ending of Mark. Sixth, various manuscripts of the New Testament have three distinct endings of Mark following 16:8, which shows that early Christians were not sure how Mark ended. Seventh, the vocabulary and style of the traditional ending differ significantly from the rest of Mark. For example, there are seventeen words the either appear only in this section of Mark or are used in a sense not found elsewhere in Mark. Stylistically, Mark's customary transitional words, "immediately" (euthys) and "again" (palin) are absent, and his habit of connecting sentences with "and" (kai), called parataxis, is not followed. Eighth, the longer ending does not carry forward the dramatic sequence in 16:6-8, since it never describes the meeting, foretold by the angel (v. 7), between Jesus and the disciples in Galilee.

In addition, the arguments for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 are not as strong as they seem. First, while most manuscripts do include 16:9-20, the great majority of them come from later centuries and belong to one family of manuscripts, called the "majority" or "Byzantine" text. Second, even if most Greek copies and most translations into other languages did have 16:9-20, it is easier to see how some would add 16:9-20 than it is to explain why others would delete it. Third, even if some church fathers do cite Mark 16:9-20, those with access to the best resources deny its authenticity. There are, therefore, powerful arguments against the authenticity of 16:9-20. It seems that the earliest copies of Mark ended at 16:8.

**Prufrock** · #7 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 05:06 PM

Tim,

A long time ago. I'd defer to someone more able in patristics, but I know that both Jerome and Eusebius note that it is lacking from most manuscripts. The reformers and early orthodox were familiar with their writings on this, but nevertheless included them as scripture. See, for instance, the extended discussion by Beza in loc.

Edit:
Oops, I see you got rid of the question, Tim. I'm too slow!

**Marrow Man** · #8 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 05:10 PM

Yes, thanks Paul. After Ben posted his quote, I edited my question so as not to detract from the discussions. He answered it nicely, as have you.

JennyG · #9 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 05:12 PM

I'd strongly recommend Dean Burgon's "the Last Twelve Verses of Mark".
It's a solid read but it addresses all aspects of the question exhaustively and concludes the verses are genuine (I found it totally convincing)

rbcbob · #10 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JennyG

I'd strongly recommend Dean Burgon's "the Last Twelve Verses of Mark".
It's a solid read but it addresses all aspects of the question exhaustively and concludes the verses are genuine (I found it totally convincing)

thus my conscience is bound by Mark 16:9-20

Hungus · #11 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 05:20 PM

If it is not part of scripture, no theology is lost. If it is part of scripture no new theology is added. If you want to see how it maps to the rest of scripture, take a look at BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: Mark 16:9-20;

I will not say it is meaningless as to if it is or is not scripture, but it is not the critical text some think it is.

**DMcFadden** · #12 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 05:38 PM

Based on my training and the arguments by Eusebius and Jerome, I voted no. But, a more honest answer would be "I don't know." The last couple of years, I have been gaining quite a bit more respect for the Byzantine tradition and have switched to the NKJV (based on Byzantine rather than mostly Alexandrian texts). So, I'm open to arguments from those more erudite than I am.

***Joshua*** · #13 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 05:43 PM

It's certainly in my Bible!

**armourbearer** · #14 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 05:44 PM

Quote:

It seems that the earliest copies of Mark ended at 16:8.

Leaving the ms. evidence to the side, as this is bound to be interpreted according to one's understanding of the history of textual transmission, one should take a close look at this hypothetical ending.

Mark 16:8, "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

The abruptness of the ending in and of itself argues against the hypothesis that this is where the Evangelist concluded the Gospel. Contextually, the charge in verse 7, to tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus goeth before them into Galilee, anticipates the traditional ending.

There is also the well accepted thesis that Peter's preaching in Acts 10 forms something of an outline for the gospel of Mark, which includes the following in verses 40-42, "Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead." See Mark 16:14. "And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead." See Mark 16:15, 16.

jogri17 · #15 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 05:44 PM

For those who made the references to the westminster standards use of these passages I would suggest that this is why we have the ability to revise them! After all most reformed churches use a revised version of the belgic confession. The original claims Paul wrote Hebrews.

reformedminister · #16 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 06:18 PM

It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!

jogri17 · #17 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reformedminister

It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!

false dicheotomy

Hungus · #18 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 06:23 PM

I am sure someone can point to an exception somewhere but every major modern translation I have access to has it present, some with a note and some without.

Skyler · #19 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 06:25 PM

It doesn't make a difference.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any major Christian doctrines are based solely upon this portion of Scripture. And if not, what difference does it make if we take it out or leave it in?

That's my policy on most disputed passages.

John Lanier · #20 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 06:27 PM

It's a shame that for hundreds of years the Bible had verses in it that weren't supposed to be there. It's a good thing the modern scholars got it fixed for us.

(Strong Sarcasm intended)

TimV · #21 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 06:39 PM

Quote:

It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!

Your Bible contains words not found in any Byzantine text. Therefore by your own logic your Bible is a perversion. But it's actually your logic that is the perversion.

William Price · #22 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyler

It doesn't make a difference.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any major Christian doctrines are based solely upon this portion of Scripture. And if not, what difference does it make if we take it out or leave it in?

That's my policy on most disputed passages.

Pentecostalism is, and especially Oneness Pentecostalism is strong in use of these scriptures.

***Joshua*** · #23 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Price

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyler

It doesn't make a difference.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any major Christian doctrines are based solely upon this portion of Scripture. And if not, what difference does it make if we take it out or leave it in?

That's my policy on most disputed passages.

Pentecostalism is, and especially Oneness Pentecostalism is strong in use of these scriptures.

The misuse and abuse, rather.

reformedminister · #24 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Quote:

It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!

Your Bible contains words not found in any Byzantine text. Therefore by your own logic your Bible is a perversion. But it's actually your logic that is the perversion.

Now let's not go to name calling. I humble myself in trying to keep a Christ-like Spirit on this board. It doesn't matter what Bible you read if you don't let the Christ of the Bible into your heart.

TimV · #25 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Now let's not go to name calling. I humble myself in trying to keep a Christ-like Spirit on this board. It doesn't matter what Bible you read if you don't let the Christ of the Bible into your heart.

Andy, the majority of the people on this board love Bibles that you call perversions. And since you mentioned Christ, He Himself used Bibles from two distinct traditions, just like most of us do.

I do not retract what I said. Your thinking on this subject is perverse. I will try to spell it out for you again. The Bible versions that you read contain words that do not come from the Byzantine tradition. You said

Quote:

It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!

There are places in the KJV that do not follow the Byzantine family of texts. Do you understand this? Do you understand what that means to your theory?

You need to learn more about the subject matter before you start throwing stones, otherwise you run the risk of both insulting people who have never done anything to you and also looking foolish.

reformedminister · #26 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Quote:

Now let's not go to name calling. I humble myself in trying to keep a Christ-like Spirit on this board. It doesn't matter what Bible you read if you don't let the Christ of the Bible into your heart.

Andy, the majority of the people on this board love Bibles that you call perversions. And since you mentioned Christ, He Himself used Bibles from two distinct traditions, just like most of us do.

I do not retract what I said. Your thinking on this subject is perverse. I will try to spell it out for you again. The Bible versions that you read contain words that do not come from the Byzantine tradition. You said

Quote:

It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!

There are places in the KJV that do not follow the Byzantine family of texts. Do you understand this? Do you understand what that means to your theory?

You need to learn more about the subject matter before you start throwing stones, otherwise you run the risk of both insulting people who have never done anything to you and also looking foolish.

I do understand this and have other translations other than the KJV/NKJV. However, ultimately you have to come to a conclusion which text family represents the original. It cannot be both. All that I am saying is that I believe that the majority text, when it comes to the N. T., which has these verses in it, is the Word of God and the Alexandrian text has verses missing. The conclusion then is that it is faulty, since it is missing about eight thousand words in the N. T. Don't chastise me because you believe something different. You have a right to your own opinion and so do I, so let it rest! I do apologize to anyone for using the word perverted to describe the critical text. I was being a little thoughtless and inconsiderate of other peoples opinions. I should have used softer words to make my point, without being disrespectful.

Hungus · #27 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reformedminister

Now let's not go to name calling. I humble myself in trying to keep a Christ-like Spirit on this board. It doesn't matter what Bible you read if you don't let the Christ of the Bible into your heart.

Reformedminister, I do not see where TimV is calling anyone names, rather I infer that he is specifically talking about your rhetoric and logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reformedminister

I do understand this and have other translations other than the KJV/NKJV. However, ultimately you have to come to a conclusion which text family represents the original. It cannot be both. All that I am saying is that I believe that the majority text, when it comes to the N. T., which has these verses in it, is the Word of God and the Alexandrian text has verses missing. The conclusion then is that it is faulty, since it is missing about eight thousand words in the N. T. Don't chastise me because you believe something different. You have a right to your own opinion and so do I, so let it rest!

There are more than 2 historiographies through. Every modern translation must be considered eclectic as they draw from various bodies of literature. Even inside the historiographies there are variations on texts so much so that there is no single ideal or true text from any of them. Thee is of course another option and that is that no single historiography is correct and that if we had the original autographs we might find they infact match an as yet unknown eclectic reading. Because of these issues, you cannot pronounce a dichotomy between 2 historiographies.

Please note I am not coming down on the side of any given historiography.

Spinningplates2 · #28 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reformedminister

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Quote:

Now let's not go to name calling. I humble myself in trying to keep a Christ-like Spirit on this board. It doesn't matter what Bible you read if you don't let the Christ of the Bible into your heart.

Andy, the majority of the people on this board love Bibles that you call perversions. And since you mentioned Christ, He Himself used Bibles from two distinct traditions, just like most of us do.

I do not retract what I said. Your thinking on this subject is perverse. I will try to spell it out for you again. The Bible versions that you read contain words that do not come from the Byzantine tradition. You said

Quote:

It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!

There are places in the KJV that do not follow the Byzantine family of texts. Do you understand this? Do you understand what that means to your theory?

You need to learn more about the subject matter before you start throwing stones, otherwise you run the risk of both insulting people who have never done anything to you and also looking foolish.

I do understand this and have other translations other than the KJV/NKJV. However, ultimately you have to come to a conclusion which text family represents the original. It cannot be both. All that I am saying is that I believe that the majority text, when it comes to the N. T., which has these verses in it, is the Word of God and the Alexandrian text has verses missing. The conclusion then is that it is faulty, since it is missing about eight thousand words in the N. T. Don't chastise me because you believe something different. You have a right to your own opinion and so do I, so let it rest! I do apologize to anyone for using the word perverted to describe your Bibles. I was being a little thoughtless and inconsiderate of other peoples opinions. I should have used softer words to make my point, without being disrespectful.

Dear Reformed Minister,
Possibly TimV will "let it rest" because you said you have differing thoughts on the KJV/NKJV bible. But as a board member I want to point out that it was you threw the "pervision" bomb. Then you call it, "a little thoughtless" when you apoligize. What would be a softer word for perversion? I'm sorry but I can't accept your non-apology. It simply seems like a "get off my back" ploy.

Everyone know the Bible is perfect and is the Word of God and the Word from God. (that is, most Christians know this) But the facts are clear that men have made mistakes in their copies. But the Bible is still perfect.
Alan H.

TimV · #29 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

I do understand this and have other translations other than the KJV/NKJV. However, ultimately you have to come to a conclusion which text family represents the original. It cannot be both. All that I am saying is that I believe that the majority text, when it comes to the N. T., which has these verses in it, is the Word of God and the Alexandrian text has verses missing. The conclusion then is that it is faulty, since it is missing about eight thousand words in the N. T. Don't chastise me because you believe something different. You have a right to your own opinion and so do I, so let it rest!

If it was proven to you that a verse in the TR was not Byzantine in origin, would you be willing to change that verse to make it conform to the Byzantine family of texts?

**DMcFadden** · #30 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 08:38 PM

Moderator Hat On:

ENOUGH! Words were used, allegations were made, apologies were offered. Further discussion of what constitutes an apology is unnecessary. Please stick to the OP and refrain from inflammatory language on either side.

SolaGratia · #31 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 08:52 PM

Regarding Mark 16:9-20, Dr. Thomas Holland's has this to say:

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).

Dr. Holland's also comments that:

In 177 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies. In it he cites from Mark 16:19, establishing that the longer reading was in existence at this time and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeus:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein. (3:10:5).

One can find the entire quote and source info here: http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_mr16_9-20.html

Hungus · #32 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 09:05 PM

SolaGratia, plagerism is not nice. Please post the source of material if it is not your own, or if it has been previously published. Your text is from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory, ©2000 and looks to be copied directly from this web article: Mark 16:9-20 (The last twelve verses of Mark)

Further, it contains a slippery slope argument at the end which is a logical fallicy which is only validated if enough chaining exists beforehand.

TimV · #33 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Further, it contains a slippery slope argument at the end which is a logical fallicy which is only validated if enough chaining exists beforehand.

In addition, building a straw man and beating it up several times in a couple paragraphs ("those who disagree with me don't believe in preservation because they think part of Mark was lost") is poor form.

So, anyone? If a verse in the TR has no Byzantine backing, who among the KJV onlies out there would be willing to change the TR to reflect the Byzantine tradition?

he beholds · #34 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 09:15 PM

I don't know and chose so, but I hope the it doesn't matter peeps were kidding.

rbcbob · #35 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Quote:

Further, it contains a slippery slope argument at the end which is a logical fallicy which is only validated if enough chaining exists beforehand.

In addition, building a straw man and beating it up several times in a couple paragraphs ("those who disagree with me don't believe in preservation because they think part of Mark was lost") is poor form.

So, anyone? If a verse in the TR has no Byzantine backing, who among the KJV onlies out there would be willing to change the TR to reflect the Byzantine tradition?

As I have stated before I am persuaded that the Byzantine text has a more credible history that either the TR or the Critical texts such as Nestle. But it must be recognized by all that Textual Criticism is a complex and even complicated discipline.

Consider one passage

Here we see that the Byzantine text and the Nestle text are in agreement against the lone Textus Receptus. Both the Byz and the Nestle text say to him who is righteous, “do, or practice, righteousness still. Here the translators of the NKJ seem to have lacked the courage to go with their own Byzantine text, which I wish they had.

TimV · #36 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 09:28 PM

Bob, I'm talking about the TR, not the KJV.

So, no TR onlies willing to answer? Would you change the TR where there is no Byzantine support or not? It's not a trick question. It's not a difficult question.

**Prufrock** · #37 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 09:31 PM

Every one -- no matter what topic you're talking about -- cool it. Stop, and read this quote from Richard Sibbes (posted by Josh Hicks). This thread needs a breather. When re-opened, please stick to the OP.

**Prufrock** · #38 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 10:51 PM

The thread is reopened; but as one brother to many others (including me), I implore us all to indeed labor to outdo one another in neither giving nor taking offense, discussing these matters in a manner becoming saints washed together in the blood of Christ, suffering together with him now as we await the glory to be revealed.

Stick to the OP.

KSon · #39 (**permalink**) 08-06-2009, 11:32 PM

FWIW, NET Bible's take on the passage (from the translational notes), which gives the best 'technical' argument for its exclusion. Apply your presuppositions from there:

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 Ë13 33 2427 Ï 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.”

Just felt it prudent to add that I voted for the inclusion of the passage. That said, I think it is important for those of us with that belief to understand fully the reasoning behind those who hold strongly for its exclusion.

Brian Withnell · #40 (**permalink**) 08-07-2009, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reformedminister

It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!

What I find interesting is something my pastor has said on the issue. To those in the time of Christ, there were known differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text of the OT. They had no problem with calling either the scripture. They knew the differences, and yet did not say one was right and the other wrong. They held both were correct. While I did not write it down (I wish I had now) I believe I remember him bringing out quotes from both versions of the OT that the reason they know which each came from was because the text reads differently in the other. What does that say about how the original writers of the NT thought about the text? It says they thought about it differently than what we tend to think about such things.

I wonder if that is what ought to be here ... if ones theology is correct these verses add nothing to what is already known. There is nothing new in them, and nothing taken away by them (which is what one would expect if someone was attempting to make Mark end more fluidly, and yet have an orthodox representation of what was added.)

The abruptness of the shorter end may testify to the validity of it. People don't leave off things and make them harder to read, they add things and make them easier to read/understand.

The "majority" of people testifying about something they have never seen themselves is no improvement of support (if I tell a story incorrectly, and 1000 people here my telling, and repeat it, does it make it more valid than the correct story told to 5 people who repeat what I said?)

Of course the other point is that with the knowledge that God keeps his word pure according to his point of view, what we can be sure of is this: regardless of which textual tradition one follows, the sum and whole of what we need to know is contained in the Bibles we have today. What we have after 400 years of new texts and new discoveries ... what part of the WCF has changed due to those discoveries? Answer: Absolutely nothing.