• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sword-In-Hand

Born again to raze hell
Nov 27, 2003
1,423
145
50
ky
✟24,862.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
This may have been brought up a long time ago, but I couldn't find a post about it. I just recently learned that there is some controversy over this verse and the whole book of Mark for that matter.

I've heard, through speculation, that Mark 16:9-20 is not considered the Word of God by some Biblical scholars. It talks about apostles being able to handle snakes and drink poison, among other things with no harm coming to them. I also heard that Mark was one of the last books placed in the New Testament canon and was almost not included.

Has anyone else heard of these speculations and if so, what's your take?
 
Reactions: BT

BT

Fanatic
Jan 29, 2003
2,320
221
51
Canada
Visit site
✟3,880.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Sword-In-Hand said:
I've heard, through speculation, that Mark 16:9-20 is not considered the Word of God by some Biblical scholars.
I've never heard this before... I'll see what I can dig up


I also heard that Mark was one of the last books placed in the New Testament canon and was almost not included.

Has anyone else heard of these speculations and if so, what's your take?
I haven't heard any of this (but I'm doing some reading now on it for you). I do know that the Gospel According to Mark was written between AD 57 and 63 and the Book of Acts was written around AD 65. So what, you ask? Well for these verses in particular we see the fulfillment in Acts... specifically with the handling of snakes..

The fulfillment of prophecy significant? I'd say so...

So anyway that's one thing off the top of my head that I would say disproves the claims that you've heard... (besides my belief that the Bible is infallible, inerrant, God-Breathed... )
 
Upvote 0

Sword-In-Hand

Born again to raze hell
Nov 27, 2003
1,423
145
50
ky
✟24,862.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I was going to wait for some others to respond before I gave my thoughts about the verse. But I don't want anyone thinking I believe that Mark 16:9-20 doesn't belong in the Bible, because I don't. There is actually a good friend of mine who is the pastor of a very popular church around my parts that will not preach out of those verses. In my wife's study Bible, which is a Criswell edition, it mentions a little about the controversy, but my study Bible, which is a Nelson edition mention's nothing about it.

My two cents are this. I believe the entire Bible is infallible and when people start taking out verses of the Bible, why not take out John 3:16, Romans 8:28, Hebrews 11:1 or just any other verse we don't agree with or don't think is inspired.

Thanks for doing some searching BT as I would like to see more about why this is a controversy.
 
Upvote 0

BT

Fanatic
Jan 29, 2003
2,320
221
51
Canada
Visit site
✟3,880.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I agree 100%


I found this in my Scofield's Ref. Bible

Mark (16:9) The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and the Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus is the second or third century.

That's just one reference. Scofield felt as if they belonged. I'm going to dig up more, I have the writings of Hippolytus and Irenaeus I'll check them a bit later. I'm still looking, and it's no problem. It's an important question that I need to know the answer to too.
 
Upvote 0

@@Paul@@

The Key that Fits:Acts 28
Mar 24, 2004
3,050
72
54
Seattle
✟18,581.00
Faith
Baptist
Many of "older more reliable" MSS do NOT contain the concluding verses in Mark.
Mar 16:15-20 KJV
(15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
(16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
(17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
(18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
(19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
(20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.​
What else do you do when you can't explain WHY all these things stopped.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
 
Upvote 0

@@Paul@@

The Key that Fits:Acts 28
Mar 24, 2004
3,050
72
54
Seattle
✟18,581.00
Faith
Baptist
Hi Sword-In-Hand, Let me know if this helps.
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark's Gospel.
This Is Appendix 168 From The Companion Bible.
Most modern critics are agreed that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are not integral part of his Gospel. They are omitted by T [A]; not by the Syriac Appendix 94. V. ii.
The question is entirely one of evidence.
From Appendix 94 V. we have seen that this evidence comes from three sources: (1) manuscripts, (2) versions, and (3) the early Christian writers, known as "the Fathers". This evidence has been exhaustively analysed by the late Dean Burgon, whose work is epitomized in numbers I-III, below.

As to MANUSCRIPTS, there are none older than the fourth century, and the oldest two uncial Manuscripts ( B and , see Appendix 94. V.) are without those twelve verses. Of all the others (consisting of some eighteen uncials and some six hundred cursive Manuscripts which contain the Gospel of Mark there is not one which leaves out these twelve verses.

As to the Versions:-
The SYRIAC. The oldest is the Syriac in it various forms: the "Peshitto" (cent. 2) and the "Curetonian Syriac" (cent. 3). Both are older than any Greek Manuscript in existence, and both contain these twelve verses. So with the "Philoxenian" (cent.5) and the "Jerusalem" (cent. 5) See note 1.

The LATIN Version. JEROME (A.D. 382), who had access to Greek Manuscripts older than any now extant, includes these twelve verses; but this Version (known as the Vulgate) was only a revision of the VETUS ITALA, which is believed to belong to cent. 2, and contains these verses.

The GOTHIC Version (A.D. 350) contains them.

The EGYPTIAN Versions: the Memphitic (or Lower Egyptian, less properly called "COPTIC"), belonging to cent. 4 or 5, contains them; as does the "THEBAIC" (or Upper Egyptian, less properly called the "SAHIDIC"), belonging to cent. 3.

The ARMENIAN (cent. 5), the ETHIOPIC (cent. 4-7), and the GEORGIAN (cent. 6) also bear witness to the genuineness of these verses.

The FATHERS. Whatever may be their value (or otherwise) as to doctrine and interpretation yet, in determining actual words, or their form or sequence, their evidence, even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions.
There are nearly a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices; while between A.D. 300 and A.D. 600 there are about two hundred more, and they all refer to these twelve verses.


PAPIAS (about A.D. 100) refers to verse 18 (as stated by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc iii. 39).


JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D. 151) quotes verse 20 ( Apol. I. c. 45).


IRENAEUS (A.D. 180) quotes and remarks on verse 19 (Adv. Hoer. lib. iii. c. x.).


HIPPOLYTUS (A.D. 190 - 227) quotes verses 17-19 (Lagarde's ed., 1858, page 74).


VINCENTIUS (A.D. 256) quoted two verses at the seventh Council of Carthage , held under CYPRIAN.


The ACTA PILATI (cent. 2) quotes verses 15, 16, 17, 18 (Tischendorf's ed., 1853. pages 243, 351).


The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS (cent. 3 or 4) quotes verses 16, 17, 18.


EUSEBIUS (A.D. 325) discusses these verses, as quoted by MARINUS from a lost part of his History.


APHRAARTES (A.D. 337), a Syrian bishop, quoted verses 16-18 in his first Homily (Dr. Wright's ed., 1869, i., page 21).


AMBROSE (A.D. 374-97), Archbishop of Milan, freely quotes verses 15 (four times), 16, 17, 18 (three times), and verse 20 (once).


CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 400) refers to verse 9; and states that verses 19, 20 are "the end of the Gospel".


JEROME (b. 331, d. 420) includes these twelve verses in his Latin translation, besides quoting verses 9 and 14 in his other writings.


AUGUSTINE (fl. A.D. 395-430) more than quotes them. He discusses them as being the work of the Evangelist MARK, and says that they were publicly read in the churches.


NESTORIUS (cent. 5) quotes verse 20, and


CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 430) accepts the quotation.


VICTOR OF ANTIOCH (A.D. 425) confutes the opinion of Eusebius, by referring to very many Manuscripts which he had seen, and so had satisfied himself that the last twelve verses were recorded in them.

We should like to add our own judgment as to the root cause of the doubts which have gathered round these verses.
They contain the promise of the Lord, of which we read the fulfilment in Hebrews 2:4. The testimony of "them that heard Him" was to be the confirmation of His own teaching when on earth: "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of pneuma hagion (that is to say, spiritual gifts. See Appendix 101. II. 14), according to His own will".
The Acts of the Apostles records the fulfilment of the Lord's promise in Mark 16:17, 18; and in the last chapter we find a culminating exhibition of "the Lord's working with them" (verses 3, 5, 8, 9). But already, in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, it was revealed that a time was then approaching when all these spiritual gifts should be "done away". That time coincided with the close of that dispensation, by the destruction of Jerusalem; when they that heard the Lord could no longer add their confirmation to the Lord's teaching, and there was nothing for God to bear witness to. For nearly a hundred years 2 after the destruction of Jerusalem there is a complete blank in ecclesiastical history, and a complete silence of Christian speakers and writers 3. So far from the Churches of the present day being the continuation of Apostolic times, "organized religion", as we see it to-day, was the work of a subsequent and quite an independent generation.
When later transcribers of the Greek manuscripts came to the last twelve verses of Mark, and saw no trace of such spiritual gifts in existence, they concluded that there must be something doubtful about the genuineness of these verses. Hence, some may have marked them as doubtful, some as spurious, while others omitted them altogether.
A phenomenon of quite an opposite kind is witnessed in the present day.
Some (believers in these twelve verses), earnest in their desire to serve the Lord, but not "rightly dividing the Word of truth" as to the dispensations, look around, and, not seeing these spiritual gifts in operation, determine to have them (!) and are led into all sorts of more than doubtful means in their desire to obtain them. The resulting "confusion" shows that God is "not the author" of such a movement (see 1 Corinthians 14:31-33).

NOTES
1 Of these, the Aramaic (or Syriac), that is to say, the Peshitto, is the most important, ranking as superior in authority to the oldest Greek manuscripts, and dating from as early as A.D. 170.
Though the Syrian Church was divided by the Third and Fourth General Councils in the fifth century, into three, and eventually into yet more, hostile communions, which have lasted for 1,400 years with all their bitter controversies, yet the same version is ready to-day in the rival churches. Their manuscripts have flowed into the libraries of the West. "yet they all exhibit a text in every important respect the same." Peshitto means a version simple and plain, without the addition of allegorical or mystical glosses.
Hence we have given this authority, where needed throughout our notes, as being of more value than the modern critical Greek texts; and have noted (for the most part) only those "various readings" with which the Syriac agrees.

2 See Colossians 1, opposite.

3 Except the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve, which is supposed to be about the middle of the second century, but which shows how soon the corruption of New Testament "Christianity" had set in.​
 
Upvote 0

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2003
17,090
1,106
California
✟23,305.00
Faith
Christian
These verses aren't in the oldest manuscripts of Mark. There also are a few manuscripts with a completely different ending on Mark, so scholars often refer to the "shorter ending" (few manuscripts, dubious) and the "longer ending" (more manuscripts, but later).

When it comes to manuscript evidence, I tend to view the small variations quite differently from the major ones. The longer ending of Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8 are, as far as I know, the only major passages that have a lot of manuscript omissions. The story of the woman actually appears in Luke in some manuscripts.

I know of pastors who won't preach on either of these passages because they doubt their canonicity. IMHO, the Church has accepted both as canonical, even though there may be some doubt as to their authorship. The story from John is one of my favorites, and scholars agree it has all the marks of a genuine Jesus story.

There are other minor manuscript problems, where words have been inserted, and I would omit them in translating the passage, but I would never omit these major passages from the Bible. JMHO. Although I'm aware of the problems with both these passages, I'm more familiar with the details of the one in John. This would be my general text-critical approach.


We don't know the dates of any of the books of the Bible with that degree of certainty. However, scholars are beginning to date the gospels, particularly Mark, earlier and earlier. It used to be that "liberal" scholars - those who didn't really believe the scriptures - tended to date the gospels quite late. Today, some of the most "liberal" date Mark around AD 40!

It seems apparent that Luke had Mark (perhaps in an earlier edition) available to him when he wrote, and Luke was written before Acts. I would therefore highly doubt that Mark was written only two years before Acts.
 
Upvote 0

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2003
17,090
1,106
California
✟23,305.00
Faith
Christian
Sword-In-Hand said:
My two cents are this. I believe the entire Bible is infallible and when people start taking out verses of the Bible, why not take out John 3:16, Romans 8:28, Hebrews 11:1 or just any other verse we don't agree with or don't think is inspired.

The question about the longer ending of Mark has nothing to do with anybody not agreeing with it and therefore not thinking it is inspired. It has to do with the fact that it is missing from the oldest manuscripts, and therefore there is some doubt as to whether it was part of the original, or was a later addition.
 
Upvote 0

BT

Fanatic
Jan 29, 2003
2,320
221
51
Canada
Visit site
✟3,880.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Sure it's debatable.

Scofield has the date at between AD 57 and 63, and Halley has it as being written and published in Rome between 60 and 70.

Scofield has Acts as being written at or around AD 65, and Halley has it at 63

Scofield has Luke as between 63 and 68, Halley has it around AD 60 (while Paul was in prison in Caesarea)

I suppose it depends on who you read (and when they wrote it, and what has been discovered if anything since then).
 
Upvote 0

Gold Dragon

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2004
2,134
125
48
Toronto, Ontario
✟17,960.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I would consider the Mark passage and the John passage to be canonical but recognize that there is some debate about whether they were part of the originals or not, and in the case of the John passage where they were located in the originals.
 
Upvote 0

SumTinWong

Living with BPD
Apr 30, 2004
6,469
744
In a house
Visit site
✟25,386.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From the NET Bible:

From Adam Clarke: Now when Jesus was risen, etc. - This, to the conclusion of the Gospel, is wanting in the famous Codex Vaticanus, and has anciently been wanting in many others. See Wetstein and Griesbach. In the margin of the later Syriac version, there is a remarkable addition after this verse; it is as follows: - And they declared briefly all that was commanded, to them that were with Peter. Afterward Jesus himself published by them, from east to west, the holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal salvation. Amen."


From the People's New Testament: Now when he had risen. The remainder of the chapter is not found in the Vatican or Siniatic Greek MSS., but is found in the Alexandrian. These are the three oldest and most reliable MSS. Some hold these verses to be a later addition, 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. Schaff, Plumptre, Olshausen, Lochman and others regard them genuine, while other critics consider them doubtful. A circumstance in their favor is that the Vatican MS. has a vacant space for them. It seems probable that in an early copy, therefore, they were omitted for some cause by a copyist who left space for them, but did not afterwards fill it, and that the Siniatic MS. was made from the mutilated copy. It is clear that Mark 16:8 was not designed to conclude Mark's narrative. "
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.