Is Mark 16:9-20 Scripture?

Is Mark 16:9-20 Scripture?


  • Total voters
    73
Status
Not open for further replies.

Hamalas

whippersnapper
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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:

[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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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)
 
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)

:agree: thus my conscience is bound by Mark 16:9-20
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
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) ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

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.
 
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

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.
 
reformedminister said:
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.
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.
 
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

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top