Ending of Gospel of Mark

[Anto9us]

We had a great discussion of 1 John 5:7,
now how bout we tear into Mark 16:9-20 ? (lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) although contained in nearly all other manuscripts of Mark.

 

[hedrick]

It's a bit more than that.

"The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document."

Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

It's a bit more than that.

"The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document."

Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament.

I see the intentions and the message of the Bible to be indestructible, yet the possibility of the absolute purity of the text being tarnished isn't out of the question.

e.g. There could be a few verses missing in certain Bibles, but the overall message will never be tampered with, aye?

 

[drjean]

Was this part canonized? If so, does that mean they checked all supporting documents and determined it should be included?

 

[Anto9us]

Mark 16:9-20 is canonized in ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE, yet I have seen some Bibles just end at verse 8 and NOT EVEN MENTION anymore, and some such as RSV add a footnote that "other tetxs and versions add..."

 

[hedrick]

Was this part canonized? If so, does that mean they checked all supporting documents and determined it should be included?

The canon wasn’t recognized at one specific time. The gospels were considered canonical as far back as we know, almost certainly before the endings were added. But as far as I know, no one specific text was canonized. The term "canonized" is potentially misleading, because it suggests some one official decision. It was really progressive, with some books accepted from the beginning, and debates about others going on for centuries.

 

[Anto9us]

If verses 16:9-20 are a GLOSS -- it's a long one.

But I don't think there is anything in the disputed passage that is not in other gospels/scriptures

 

[hedrick]

Mark 16:9-20 is canonized in ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE, yet I have seen some Bibles just end at verse 8 and NOT EVEN MENTION anymore, and some such as RSV add a footnote that "other tetxs and versions add..."

The question of canonical status is actually not quite the same as the textual question. E.g. I consider the episode of Jesus with the woman taken in adultery in John canonical, even though it certainly wasn't part of the original text of John. I assume it is an ancient story that was transmitted separately from John, and at some point added to it. The fact that it wasn't originally part of John doesn't make it non-canonical, at least for me.

There's nothing wrong with Mark 16:9 ff. A church could certainly accept it as canonical even if it wasn't written by Mark. Canonical simply means that it's used by the particular community making the judgement.

The PCUSA doesn't make formal canonical judgements on specific passages, but I've certainly heard the woman taken in adultery quoted. I don't think we'd typically use Mark 16:9 ff, simply because there are better sources for the post-resurrection appearances.

 

[hedrick]

If verses 16:9-20 are a GLOSS -- it's a long one.

But I don't think there is anything in the disputed passage that is not in other gospels/scriptures

No, it's not a gloss. The best guess is that people thought Mark ended abruptly, and supplied an ending. One thing in favor of that is that there are at least 3 different endings in different manuscript traditions.

To this day there's debates about whether the original ending was lost or Mark intended it to end at 8. Personally, I think he meant it to end there. He had already included an account of the resurrection. 16:7 says that Jesus is going to meet his disciples. I suspect he decided stories of those meetings were not necessary. After all, he also omits anything about Jesus' birth. I think he had a narrower focus than Matthew or Luke.

 

[Anto9us]

Yes I have seen "different endings" -- Freer Logion and so forth

 

[Radagast]

now how bout we tear into Mark 16:9-20 ? (lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus)

The likely situation is that the "long ending" of Mark is not part of the original, but it's a very old alternative. Some manuscripts with the shorter ending seem to have space left for the long one, as if the scribe was not at first sure which ending to use.

But I don't think there is anything in the disputed passage that is not in other gospels/scriptures

Verse 18 ("they will pick up serpents with their hands") is used by some American Pentecostal groups as justification for snake-handling in church.

To this day there's debates about whether the original ending was lost or Mark intended it to end at 8.

Indeed.

Since Christians used codices (books) instead of scrolls from fairly early on, it's possible that there was an original "last page" that got lost. But that's just guesswork.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There's also something to be said about the abrupt ending to Mark at v. 8; allowing the reader to stop and share in the awe and wonder of the women who encounter the empty tomb.

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[hedrick]

There's also something to be said about the abrupt ending to Mark at v. 8; allowing the reader to stop and share in the awe and wonder of the women who encounter the empty tomb.

-CryptoLuthearn

That's part of why I think the ending at 8 is original.

The other problem is that the longer ending doesn't even make sense following 8. Before 8 the three women see Jesus, with instructions to tell Peter. In 9 he appears just to Mary Magdalene, and she goes to tell the others. You can harmonize Mark and John by saying that John just didn't mention the other two. But when you stick John after Mark as a second episode (vs 9 ff is an abbreviated version of John's account) you create a contradiction.

 

[Anto9us]

You're right, hedrick, it abruptly switches from the three women to just Mary M at verse 9

 

[Mark_Sam]

For what it's worth, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the longer ending of Mark as canonical. For example, it is the Gospel read on Ascension Thurday this year (Year B), and also on Saturday in the Octave of Easter this year.

Personally I think that the longer ending was compiled by a disciple of Mark who felt that the ending in v. 8 was lacking. Whether or not Mark himself considered his Gospel finished in v. 8 is also an interesting question.

 

[Radagast]

Personally I think that the longer ending was compiled by a disciple of Mark who felt that the ending in v. 8 was lacking.

That's possible. Certainly both endings have coexisted since very early on.

 

[Knee V]

For another perspective:

We Orthodox, generally speaking, tend to favor the Byzantine/Majority textual family. However, in our service of Paschal Matins (immediately preceding the Paschal Liturgy), we read from Mark's account of the Resurrection, and our reading ends at verse 8.

 

[Radagast]

For another perspective:

We Orthodox, generally speaking, tend to favor the Byzantine/Majority textual family. However, in our service of Paschal Matins (immediately preceding the Paschal Liturgy), we read from Mark's account of the Resurrection, and our reading ends at verse 8.

That's really, really interesting.

As I said, both endings have coexisted since very early on, and it sounds like they also coexist within the Orthodox church.

 

[Anto9us]

The most thorough commentary on Mark that I have is by Morna Hooker (Anglican) she definitely thinks 16:9-20 was NOT written by Mark

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Interesting topic.
Does any of it conflict with, or contradict any of the rest of the N T?
An example is the books that were added to the 66 books of the original canon of the OT and are still used by some church denominations today.
That combined with Mark's extra verse may cause more doubt and confusion to those outside of Christianity concerning the divinity and infallibility of the Christian Bible.
But in my humble opinion, as long as it doesn't "ship wreck" the faith of those within Christianity and contradict the rest of the Bible, I see no problem with the addition of those verses in Mark.
I haven't done a deep study on it as some members on here have, and why I enjoy reading the member comment s on it.
Posted using my Android phone.