Ending of Gospel of Mark

[LittleLambofJesus]

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

Good question.
I don't have access to a computer right now and posting by phone is a challenge.
I'm more of a Luke fan myself.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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

That is interesting, but why should it really matter which author penned it? Just wondering.

 

[hedrick]

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

This is basically impossible to answer. The Gospels were considered authoritative from as early as we know. Calling it "canon" might be anachronistic, but it was regarded as authoritative before the extra endings were added.

What makes it hard to define is that there's no single time when the NT was "canonized." Furthermore, no specific text was canonized. The lists were simply of books. There was a slow process of agreement over several centuries. By the time it was finished there were copies with the endings. Eusebius, in the 4th Cent, said that some copies had it and some didn't. He regarded the copies without as more accurate.

So I don't think it's really possible to say whether it was or wasn't in the canon, because as the canon congealed, some people used the endings and some didn't.

 

[Anto9us]

I agree it's not possible to say. I have two NIV bibles, both have a note right between 16:8 and 16:9 that says "the most reliable and early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20".

One of the NIVs (Quest Study Bible), has a big long commentary about it, discussing some of the things in this thread.

 

[drjean]

It is generally accepted that, regardless of works being accepted prior to the Council at Nicea, the accepted and still-today reference to the "Canonization" of the New Testament occurred at the Council of Nicea.

Council of Nicaea, also called First Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey). It was called by the emperor Constantine
​

It really could not have been previously so canonized because it wasn't in Greek yet:

the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, is traditionally dated to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-246 BC)
​

I refuse to cast doubt of this kind upon the foundation of the Holy Word of God. Modern thought of course is adamant about refusing to accept God, much less His Word.

 

[Mark_Sam]

It is generally accepted that, regardless of works being accepted prior to the Council at Nicea, the accepted and still-today reference to the "Canonization" of the New Testament occurred at the Council of Nicea.

The official documents of the Coucil of Nicea are the Symbol (the Nicene Creed), 20 canons and a letter to the Church of Alexandria. None of these deals with the canon of the New Testament. Church historians - both contemporary and later - tells us that they did indeed discuss Scripture a lot. But the specific question of canon was not discussed.

It really could not have been previously so canonized because it wasn't in Greek yet:

the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, is traditionally dated to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-246 BC)

Well, the Septuagint was a translation of the Old Testament, made around 300 years before the New Testament was written. And it is generally agreed upon that all the Gospels and the New Testament were written originally in Greek. So I don't see how this is relevant for our discussion of the ending of Mark.

I refuse to cast doubt of this kind upon the foundation of the Holy Word of God. Modern thought of course is adamant about refusing to accept God, much less His Word.

Modern biblical scholarship has actually proven how reliable and accurate the New Testament is. The fact that out of all the books of the New Testament (which in my Bible span 370 pages), only two paragraphs are contested (the longer ending of Mark, and the woman taken in adultery, John 7:53-8:11) after 2000 years, is really saying something!

It is true that some modern biblical scholars are non-believers and seek to tear down the reliability of the New Testament. But we as Christians can - and ought to - use modern biblical scholarship to examine the New Testament, since it indeed does stand up to scrutiny.

 

[drjean]

I stand corrected...regarding the Septuagint. DOH how fatigued was I when I posted that?

Here's an interesting read: The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible

 

[Anto9us]

from your link, drjean:

"The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated
project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an
atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and
bigotry."

Kinda sounds like CF!!

 

[Rubiks]

The scholarly consensus is that Mark 16:9-20 are not part of the original Gospel of Mark. However, there is disagreement whether Mark intended to end his gospel at verse 8 (majority view) or the original ending has been lost (minority view).

Nonetheless, there is no reason to think that Mark would have objected to the content in verses 9 through 20.

 

[mark kennedy]

The scholarly consensus is that Mark 16:9-20 are not part of the original Gospel of Mark. However, there is disagreement whether Mark intended to end his gospel at verse 8 (majority view) or the original ending has been lost (minority view).

Nonetheless, there is no reason to think that Mark would have objected to the content in verses 9 through 20.

That's very true, even solid evangelicals are highly skeptical that verses 9-20 were a part of the original:

Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark. It doesn’t even read like Mark. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark. The structure is very different from the familiar structure of Mark’s writing. The title, “Lord Jesus,” is used here in verse 19, never used anywhere else by Mark. There’s no reference to Peter here, although Peter was mentioned in verse 7.

And then you have some strange themes, the theme of not believing in verses 11, 14 and 16. The theme of gospel proclamation, verses 11 through 20, they don’t exist anywhere in Mark. They seem out of bounds for the subjects that occupy him.

And then you have thrown in signs. They don’t appear in any of the four gospels. In no account, post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, laying hands on the sick. So both internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark. (The Fitting End to Mark’s Gospel. GTY)
​

Mark being one of the earliest books I can't help but wonder if it had another ending that was damaged or lost. The church, meaning well, may have tried to reconstruct it. I simply don't know and it's hard to say how important this might be. The Synoptic Gospels are so close right up until you throw this ending in and it just starts looking out of place.

 

[lesliedellow]

If it is an addition, it was one made very early. It seems to have been known about by circa 140. Conceivably it might have been Mark himself who made the addition.

 

[Micah888]

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

Aye. And as to The Last Twelve Verses of Mark they have been established as genuine Scripture in a book by that title by John William Burgon. Christians should not discuss this matter without first reading textual scholar Burgon's research.

By the same token Burgon also established that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were two of THE MOST CORRUPT manuscripts in existence. Hence there testimony should be disregarded. And even Vaticanus has a blank space which is the exact amount of space required for those 12 verses. Therefore it bears testimony to their removal.

 

[Erik Nelson]

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.

that exact citation is refuted in

"The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16: 9-20" by Lund

the reputation is outlined in detail in the introduction available for free with preview feature On Amazon.

99% of all manuscripts include the long ending. And according to Lund. 100% of all manuscripts show awareness of the long ending. Along with the early church fathers Irenaeus Papias and Tatian from the second century AD.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Aye. And as to The Last Twelve Verses of Mark they have been established as genuine Scripture in a book by that title by John William Burgon. Christians should not discuss this matter without first reading textual scholar Burgon's research.

By the same token Burgon also established that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were two of THE MOST CORRUPT manuscripts in existence. Hence there testimony should be disregarded. And even Vaticanus has a blank space which is the exact amount of space required for those 12 verses. Therefore it bears testimony to their removal.

Yes. Lund sites Bergen. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were both written. At the same scriptorium. Within about a decade of each other. Possibly at. Caesarea. The hometown of Eusebius. They are not entirely independent traditions. And they are not much older. than other fourth and fifth century. Greek manuscripts. Which do contain? the Long ending.

 

[Erik Nelson]

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

Some manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus

 

[Erik Nelson]

That is interesting, but why should it really matter which author penned it? Just wondering.

Didn't a follower of John write the final chapter of his gospel. Perhaps. Mark or a follower of his. wrote. The final section of his gospel also.

 

[Erik Nelson]

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.

Codex Bobiensis - Wikipedia

It was probably written in North Africa, and is dated to the 4th or 5th century. Later, it was brought to the monastery in Bobbio in northern Italy. It was traditionally assigned to St. Columban, who died in the monastery he had founded there, in 615.[3] Today it is housed in the Turin National University Library.

Researchers, comparing the Codex Bobiensis with quotes from Cyprian’s publications from the 3rd century, think it may represent a page from the Bible Cyprian used while he was a bishop in Carthage. A palaeographic study of the scripture determined it is a copy of a papyrus script from the 2nd century...

Mark 16
There is a unique reading following Mark 16:3:

Subito autem ad horam tertiam tenebrae diei factae sunt per totum orbem terrae, et descenderunt de caelis angeli et surgent in claritate vivi Dei (viri duo?); simul ascenderunt cum eo, et continuo lux facta est.[5]

The text requires some conjectural emendation. Bruce Metzger provides the following translation:

But suddenly at the third hour of the day there was darkness over the whole circle of the earth, and angels descended from the heavens, and as he [the Lord] was rising in the glory of the living God, at the same time they ascended with him; and immediately it was light. [6]

The "Shorter Ending," with slight variations, runs as follows:

But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself (appeared to them and) sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

 

[Erik Nelson]

that exact citation is refuted in

"The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16: 9-20" by Lund

the reputation is outlined in detail in the introduction available for free with preview feature On Amazon.

99% of all manuscripts include the long ending. And according to Lund. 100% of all manuscripts show awareness of the long ending. Along with the early church fathers Irenaeus Papias and Tatian from the second century AD.

Ireneus Came from France. Tatian. Came from Rome. Papias. Came from. Turkey. Western Roman and eastern Greek communities new of the long ending and used it.

The manuscript traditions lacking the long ending all derived from Egypt and Palestine, Alexandria, and Caesarea.