The ending of Mark

Leaf473 said:

Which Cannon are you referring to?

Click to expand...

A cannon is a large gun. The canon of Scripture is the 66 "books" of the Bible (not counting the Apocrypha).

pescador said:

A cannon is a large gun. The canon of Scripture is the 66 "books" of the Bible (not counting the Apocrypha).

Click to expand...

Yep, I'm sure I wrote Canon first, autocorrect must have fixed it for me

Who decided those 66 books?

ewq1938 said:

, but as they are found in all the most ancient versions they must have been a part of Mark's Gospel when the first century ended.

Click to expand...

How are they found in the oldest if they are not in Sanaitic or Vatican? Am I reading your quote wrong?

ewq1938 said:

Or removed by a bad scribe in the distant past, affecting only some manuscripts while others remained original and their copies maintaining the correct ending, an ending that has much in common with the ending of other gospels.

God wanted Mark to end as it has. There is a reason the past translators used the version of Mark we have in our bibles.

Click to expand...

And I saw a dog with wings flying high in the sky! Some people will believe anything!

Good luck picking up rattlesnakes and drinking poison!

Make sure to read my "signature" below, as it clearly applies to you.

ByTheSpirit said:

So fairly straight forward question. Legitimately curious about the ending of Mark, talking vv9-20. It seems modern translations have no issue with leaving whole verses out of the Bible if there's poor support for them in older manuscripts. I'm fine with that, which brings me to the ending of Mark.

From my understanding there are three different endings, none of which are in older manuscripts. So why is it included in these modern translations? Should we treat it as legitimate scripture?

Click to expand...

The traditional ending of Mark has been included in Scripture for a long time, long enough that it could be argued that even if not actually written by the Evangelist, it's still Scripture. I'd argue this is different from much later interpolations, such as the Johanine Comma.

That said, I would treat the traditional ending of Mark much like I do the historic Antilegomena of the New Testament: It can be used to support, but not establish doctrine.

If the term Antilegomena is unfamliar, it refers to those books which were historically disputed. The Antilegomena that was ultimately accepted and received are: The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle of James, 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, and the Revelation of John. The non-canonical Antilegomena includes the Didache, the Epistle of Clement (aka 1 Clement), the Shepherd of Hermas, and in some cases the Revelation of Peter (as well as one or two others which I may be forgetting at the moment).

This is in contrast to the Homolegoumena, or those books which have always been universally accepted: the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, 1 John, and 1 Peter. The Homolegoumena can be seen as the kind of "core New Testament", about as early as we see Christians talking about what books are Scripture and which aren't, these books have always been accepted. In the 2nd century, for example, Irenaeus says it is as obvious to the Church that there are only four Gospels just as there are obviously four cardinal directions. There was no debate on these books among the churches.

As such, the Antilegomena, or the traditional ending of Mark, isn't wrong to be in the Bible and accepted as Scripture--however, we should not "establish" doctrine here, but rather support. So, for example, the traditional ending of Mark mentions that followers of Jesus would pick up venomous snakes and drink poison without harm--clearly examples of what happened to some early Christians, especially St. Paul who was bit by a snake when he was shipwrecked. It would be wrong to use this to establish that Christians should go around playing with deadly snakes and poisons. But it is fine, for example, to recognize the importance of Baptism "Whoever believes and is baptized..." since the importance and significance of Baptism is clearly established elsewhere, such as in the letters of Paul (e.g. Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12-13, Galatians 3:27, etc). In the same way, it would be wrong to use the Revelation of John to establish that there will be a literal thousand year reign of Jesus in the future, or to claim that there is a literal bottomless bit inhabited by man-faced locust monsters. But the Revelation of John, supporting already established teaching and providing additional insights--that is a good use of the Revelation.

I would argue this is a part of what it means to "interpret Scripture with Scripture" specifically with the principle that the clear interprets the unclear: Where Scripture is clear and plain rules over and helps us interpret the less clear and the ambiguous. This is also why we don't use what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 concerning those "baptized for the sake of the dead" and then start doing proxy-baptisms like the Mormons do. In fact, because it isn't clear what Paul means here, we shouldn't dogmatically assert anything or say any doctrine or teaching is established (since it isn't clear what Paul is talking about exactly).

-CryptoLutheran

ewq1938 said:

But the gospel would have no valid ending if verse 9 onward was removed. All gospels contain things no other does. Also, older manuscripts don't equal more valid manuscripts. Old errant ones would be less accurate than newer ones without errors.

I'd rather trust that God made sure it was correct.

Click to expand...

A lot of scholars actually are convinced that Mark deliberately ended things short, leaving the reader to partake in the awe and wonder of those who went to the tomb. In other words, this is Mark's version of the Great Commission--by deliberately and abruptly ending the narrative as a way to say, "So what are you, the reader, going to do now?"

This can be especially effective in a live reading (and we should remember that ALL Scripture was read out loud) and that when the Gospel of Mark was read and ending abruptly here can create quite the dynamic.

A number of years ago I attended a Tenebrae service at the local Catholic Church. For those who may not know, tenebrae is Latin for "darkness"; it refers to a Good Friday service in which over the course of the service the Passion is read from the Gospel, and slowly the candles lighting the sanctuary are put out. During the reading of the Passion, at the moment of Christ's death, the last and largest candle is snuffed out, the Gospel book is slammed shut (to imitate the shutting of the tomb with the rock) and everyone leaves in total silence.

It is intentionally dramatic, to invoke something. I think it isn't too wild to suggest Mark may have desired just that kind of dramatic impact.

-CryptoLutheran

If the ending is in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, then that is the original ending. Greek was the most popular language during the age of Saint Mark. But Greek was also at it's peek then, it quickly descended and was replaced by Latin. So it's only logical that there would be older manuscripts missing things.

I sincerely doubt that most people who post on this forum are experts. Most of us have our opinions, but most of the time they have no sound footing.

Here is the NET translator's comment on the long ending of Marks' Gospel (with my emphases)...

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B sys sams armmss geomss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). This is known as the “short ending.” The following “intermediate” 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 intermediate ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 579 pc); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the “long ending” (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has unique material between vv. 14 and 15] Θ ƒ13 33 M lat syc,p,h bo); however, Eusebius (and presumably Jerome) knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses. Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the intermediate and the long endings. Their vocabulary, syntax, and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence indicates 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 likelihood that early scribes 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 today 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.” For further discussion and viewpoints, see Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, ed. D. A. Black (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008); Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (London: Pickwick, 2014); Gregory P. Sapaugh, “An Appraisal of the Intrinsic Probability of the Longer Endings of the Gospel of Mark” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012).sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

If some disagree with the experts, please answer precisely why.

To answer the OP, there are two reasons for including the endings in a translation:
* The translators reject textual criticism
* For information. After all, they are often quoted. Including them with a note that they aren’t in the original is useful so if someone quotes a passage we know what it is.

Church of Christ congregations would like Mark 16:16
Pentecostal/Charismatics would like Mark 16:17
Finally, those who still believe in snake handling would like Mark 16:18.

ByTheSpirit said:

So fairly straight forward question. Legitimately curious about the ending of Mark, talking vv9-20. It seems modern translations have no issue with leaving whole verses out of the Bible if there's poor support for them in older manuscripts. I'm fine with that, which brings me to the ending of Mark.

From my understanding there are three different endings, none of which are in older manuscripts. So why is it included in these modern translations? Should we treat it as legitimate scripture?

Click to expand...

What you are getting into are the claims by the 'textual critics'. Those textual critics started movements to defame the Greek texts used for the 1611 KJV New Testament, by claiming the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were 'older', and thus more reliable. Their claim has not been substantiated though, yet many today choose to believe those textual critics.

I advise you see the documentary Bridge to Babylon which documents all this. It's on YouTube.

ewq1938 said:

Or removed by a bad scribe in the distant past, affecting only some manuscripts while others remained original and their copies maintaining the correct ending, an ending that has much in common with the ending of other gospels.

God wanted Mark to end as it has. There is a reason the past translators used the version of Mark we have in our bibles.

Click to expand...

The writing style of the "long ending" of Mark is quite different than the rest of the Gospel. Do you think that Mark decided to write the long ending in a different style than the rest of the Gospel?

God wanted Mark to end as it was originally written.

ByTheSpirit said:

So fairly straight forward question. Legitimately curious about the ending of Mark, talking vv9-20. It seems modern translations have no issue with leaving whole verses out of the Bible if there's poor support for them in older manuscripts. I'm fine with that, which brings me to the ending of Mark.

From my understanding there are three different endings, none of which are in older manuscripts. So why is it included in these modern translations? Should we treat it as legitimate scripture?

Click to expand...

A lot of the older Greek manuscripts had sections pruned out, and a lot of the later ones had sections added in,....

I personally think the ending is good.