THE BEST OF BEST explanation ever made about MARK 16:8-\-9-20 Dear Pastor, May the Lord YAHshua the Son of YAHWEH and the RUACH HaKODESH(Holy Spirit) bless your Life your family and your Ministry....😍
Hey pastor Matt. Thanks for all your videos. If I may just offer a comment, the fact that the shorter ending ends with the word γαρ (a conjunction that means "for, since") shouldn't surprise us. In Biblical Greek, as you probably know, the conjunction γαρ never starts the clause it's in. It's always written as the second word of the sentence it's in. So, the shorter ending of Mark ending with γαρ is actually what we should expect! Hope this is helpful! Thanks again for your videos.
I can't even comprehend Mark ending his book at verse 8. Is there any parallel, religious or secular, anywhere in the ancient world of an author deliberately ending a story on such a discordant note? Especially since Mark was trying to _evangelize,_ where the conclusion is the whole point
God said He would preserve His Word. His Word is not lost, even though the early writings may be. This is such a great video and it is helping me further define my personal journey. Thank you very much.
@@HistoryandReviews Not so much altered but when you read the original text in the original Hebrew and Greek, you get the full picture. But the uneducated seem to gloss over this fact.
In the past I was confident that the longer ending was not original. But more recently I came across James Snapp Jr. and his book: Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20. Kindle edition is 99 cents on Amazon and he has a lot of videos on TH-cam here. Like you said and also James Snapp: basically all Greek texts have the long ending, except for Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. That is something that should be considered and reflected on. Also like Moses, Jeremiah ends with not his words but some other author. "The words of Jeremiah end here" Jer 51:64 - then comes chapter 52 (the last chapter) of Jeremiah
11:12 It’s not misleading to say "some" earliest mss., because there are several. (I understand that you're just thinking about the Greek, but textual critics take from many languages and Versions) (as you mentioned later at 19:48): The oldest Old Latin manuscript (VL 1 = Codex Bobiensis, from the fourth or fifth century) concludes at Mark 16:8 with a version of the Shorter Ending and lacks 16:9-20 The oldest Syriac manuscript (the Sinaitic Syriac, from the fourth century) ends at 16:8 The oldest Sahidic manuscript (sa 1 = P. Palau-Ribes Inv. Nr. 182, from the fifth century) ends at 16:8 The earliest evidence we have for the Christian Palestinian Aramaic version of Mark (Codex Sinaiticus Rescriptus in St Petersburg, Syr. No. 16) ends at 16:8 The oldest Armenian manuscripts (going back to the ninth century) end at 16:8 The oldest Georgian manuscripts (translated from the Armenian) end at 16:8 This mss. evidence taken from: A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark, Text & Canon Institute, Peter M. Head So regarding an ending at vs. 8, there are several in agreement for the short ending from our earliest mss. evidence. What makes little sense is how other endings (and the "Shorter Ending" Codex Bobiensis) would arise if the longer ending was authentic (from the original *scroll). See #5: Comfort, Philip W., “A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament” (Kregel, 2015) - for another list of mss. with both the "Shorter Ending" & Longer Ending.
Bruce Metzger considered this passage to be canonical... "There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark” (Bruce Metzger, “The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance” (p. 270).
I think your point about having additional authors to a text is a important one, particularly when comparing the Old/New Testaments. With texts like the ending of Pentateuch or 1 Samuel 9:9 they appear to be written by someone who isn't the traditional author of that text and yet we have no issue calling them inspired, yet when it comes to the New Testament many cannot accept the same theology on this. Was Mark the original author of 16:9-20, in my opinion no, does it matter to me, not really however I still read it as inspired and canonical. If you reject the longer ending I don't see why we should accept the work of the later 'editors' in the Old Testament aswell like in the aforementioned 1 Samuel 9:9
19:10 Although there are large and small letters in that ms, unless I'm mistaken, they're all in the capital form; none of the letters appear to be in what we now recognize as the lower-case Greek form. Perhaps that's why it's classified as majuscule.
Hi Matt, Jim here, how can we be sure that the longer ending is more correct than the shorter one when you’re talking about 100 years difference. Plus the fact that we’re dealing with the forth century shorter ending and a fifth century longer ending. What’s the rationale that the longer ending is more accurate than the shorter ending then. Not only that but we have 400 years from when the gospel of mark was supposedly written without originals and only copies that even throws more confusion to the mix as to what is original and what isn’t. What are your thoughts.
It is a difficult test case to be sure, however the longer ending of Mark is quoted very early on, for instance in Justin Martyr, who wrote 165 AD. So in this case we have Church Father quotations that preceded the earliest manuscript evidence.
I have a question for you. I was once a charismatic until about a year or 2 ago when I discovered reformed theology. I am moving soon to a city that has mostly PCA churches and I may join one but then I saw that some PCA churches are tolerant of cigar smoking. What are your thoughts on cigar smoking as a christian? I always thought that was a sinful act.
If memory serves, it is most likely that Peter slapped the longer ending onto the gospel of Mark. There is vocabulary there that elsewhere is only found in the epistles of Peter.
Great video! However, did you mean to say the ending of the SCROLL would have been worn away after use. Christians invented the book (codex); Last page torn off..!? These do not work together chronologically. The outside of a rolled scroll is the end of the "book". It is highly probable that the parent document (maybe the autograph, maybe not) in which the shorter version was taken became compromised over time due to use. When the shorter version was copied and distributed, those distributed versions would not have the longer ending. It is very interesting that each version is prominent to its particular geography.
So what if somebody from the majority text church asked you to stand and affirm that he was reading the inspired word of God after reading the long ending of Mark? I guess you'd have to stand up and lie or else be viewed as weird.
Very good video. You should check out Mike Winger's long two hour video on this very topic, if you haven't already: th-cam.com/video/WJilpQsl4vc/w-d-xo.html With that said, you shared more manuscripts and shared some new things that Mike didn't in his video. Another really early witness to the longer ending is Tatian's Diatessaron, from about 160-175 A.D. I'd love for you to do another video just like this, but for John 7:53-8:11 on the woman caught in adultery (Pericope Adulterae).
Didn't he start by saying he's a critical text guy? And then he spent absolutely no time doing a critical review of the actual text of verses 9-20. Unbelievable...
@@MatthewEverhard My research does not confirm that "The Critical Text" is only based on two versions, which you seem to be claiming above. I understand that the notion of critical text is based on a comparative reading of many manuscripts and determining what readings are the most likely to be the original, taking into account concepts such as preferring the more difficult reading as more likely, etc. What am I missing here?
@@paul3441 Hello sir. You are correct that the Critical Text is based on dozens, even hundreds of manuscripts! The number of Greek manuscripts number over 5,000! But they don't all contain every text. Some are only portions or fragments. What I am saying here is that the choice of the Critical Text to relegate the longer ending to brackets or footnotes is only based on the two texts (three if you could the 304 commentary) that lack it, i.e. the ones that I showed you. Does that make sense sir?
@@MatthewEverhard If you're saying that, for round numbers, 4,998 of the 5,000 contain the identical same long ending as the KJV, then I understand what you're saying. But I have read in many places of at least two other endings, both being shorter than the long ending, but longer than verse 8. Do these such other/variant manuscripts not exist in your knowledge? Thank you.
Where is God in the authorship? Mark did not write it but it is ascribed to Mark. The earliest manuscripts are from the 4th century, i.e, Almost 400 years after Jesus.The Quran clarifies all this confusion. Read the Quran with an open mind!
What is this guy doing? He says there are only two manuscripts that have the shorter ending, mentions a commentary without providing a date, and then mentions that 99 out of some 200 manuscripts have the shorter ending?! Worst video I've seen in a while.
He’s explaining the evidence and rationale behind the ending of Mark. Did so in such a way as to be scholarly but also that someone almost completely unfamiliar with textual criticism could understand, while also giving a visual on how one can examine manuscripts. A very informative and helpful video, and if that upsets you and makes you want to berate a minister just trying to help lay people understand an important issue, then you need to check yourself.
That's right - the only two ancient Greek mss that lack the longer ending (thus ending in 16:8) are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. There is also manuscript #304 which is actually a text + commentary. The statistic 99 of 200 that I gave refers to the ancient Aremenian translations of the Greek. Hope that helps!
@@MatthewEverhard So then there are over 100 total manuscripts that lack the longer ending; correct? And what about the other two endings? There are actually four different endings. But perhaps the most powerful evidence against the longer ending is the word choice, which is highly inconsistent with the rest of the book of Mark. And also, a high school student could recognize the sudden veering off the road in the account beginning in verse 9 where the writer feels they have to introduce a character that is already in the story. Also important is the fact that there are strange Pentecostal and other doctrines that can be traced back only to verses 9-20--nowhere else in scripture. And it would be the only account of Jesus speaking of speaking in tongues. I could go on, but I was hoping you would have addressed any of these issues based on the video's title.
I don’t think you listen very well Paul. Stop being so ideological! Pastor Matt presented very thorough and scholarly viewpoint! You sir are out of line! You need to learn some Christian virtues such as respect! He is not “this guy” And who are you and what are your credentials Paul?
THE BEST OF BEST explanation ever made about MARK 16:8-\-9-20 Dear Pastor, May the Lord YAHshua the Son of YAHWEH and the RUACH HaKODESH(Holy Spirit) bless your Life your family and your Ministry....😍
Great video! Glad to hear you are finding Dr. Maurice Robinson helpful!
Thank you Pastor Matt for putting this together. It has helped me have a better understanding of the differences
It is refreshing to see a well-reasoned conclusion. Helpful video.
Extremely helpful! It’s going to be months before I’m preaching the end of Mark, but I was looking forward to studying this issue. Thanks, Matt.
Awesome! Not only am I happy with your research, I'm also happy with your conclusion ;P
In all seriousness, great stuff!
Hey pastor Matt. Thanks for all your videos.
If I may just offer a comment, the fact that the shorter ending ends with the word γαρ (a conjunction that means "for, since") shouldn't surprise us. In Biblical Greek, as you probably know, the conjunction γαρ never starts the clause it's in. It's always written as the second word of the sentence it's in. So, the shorter ending of Mark ending with γαρ is actually what we should expect!
Hope this is helpful! Thanks again for your videos.
John 12:44-50
Your salvation or lack thereof is here.
Tremendous presentation thank you Pastor Matt !
Very informative and well explained. Thank you!
I can't even comprehend Mark ending his book at verse 8. Is there any parallel, religious or secular, anywhere in the ancient world of an author deliberately ending a story on such a discordant note? Especially since Mark was trying to _evangelize,_ where the conclusion is the whole point
Thanks! Very informative well explained and insightful. Looking forward to more. God bless all your efforts!
thanks for diving deeper into this Pastor Matt
Thank you! This is most helpful! More of that would be great.
Wonderful explanation… you changed my mind on the ending of the book of Mark
God said He would preserve His Word. His Word is not lost, even though the early writings may be. This is such a great video and it is helping me further define my personal journey. Thank you very much.
Oh be quiet! The bible has been ALTERED DEAL WITH IT! The word isn’t protected and it isn’t God!
@@HistoryandReviews Not so much altered but when you read the original text in the original Hebrew and Greek, you get the full picture. But the uneducated seem to gloss over this fact.
@@jeffneub3578 there is no Hebrew original to the “New” Testament
@@HistoryandReviews there are 2,500 Allusions in the NT from the OT Do your research
@@HistoryandReviews You disappeared, where'd you go?
I really like the idea of multiple autographa. That really helps to settle certain anomalies in other texts as well.
The multiple endings rip off the other gospels
In the past I was confident that the longer ending was not original. But more recently I came across James Snapp Jr. and his book: Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20. Kindle edition is 99 cents on Amazon and he has a lot of videos on TH-cam here.
Like you said and also James Snapp: basically all Greek texts have the long ending, except for Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. That is something that should be considered and reflected on.
Also like Moses, Jeremiah ends with not his words but some other author.
"The words of Jeremiah end here" Jer 51:64 - then comes chapter 52 (the last chapter) of Jeremiah
11:12 It’s not misleading to say "some" earliest mss., because there are several. (I understand that you're just thinking about the Greek, but textual critics take from many languages and Versions) (as you mentioned later at 19:48):
The oldest Old Latin manuscript (VL 1 = Codex Bobiensis, from the fourth or fifth century) concludes at Mark 16:8 with a version of the Shorter Ending and lacks 16:9-20
The oldest Syriac manuscript (the Sinaitic Syriac, from the fourth century) ends at 16:8
The oldest Sahidic manuscript (sa 1 = P. Palau-Ribes Inv. Nr. 182, from the fifth century) ends at 16:8
The earliest evidence we have for the Christian Palestinian Aramaic version of Mark (Codex Sinaiticus Rescriptus in St Petersburg, Syr. No. 16) ends at 16:8
The oldest Armenian manuscripts (going back to the ninth century) end at 16:8
The oldest Georgian manuscripts (translated from the Armenian) end at 16:8
This mss. evidence taken from: A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark, Text & Canon Institute, Peter M. Head
So regarding an ending at vs. 8, there are several in agreement for the short ending from our earliest mss. evidence.
What makes little sense is how other endings (and the "Shorter Ending" Codex Bobiensis) would arise if the longer ending was authentic (from the original *scroll). See #5: Comfort, Philip W., “A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament” (Kregel, 2015) - for another list of mss. with both the "Shorter Ending" & Longer Ending.
Bruce Metzger considered this passage to be canonical... "There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark” (Bruce Metzger, “The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance” (p. 270).
Thank you. Very insightful.
It's not "some" scholars who lean to the "Abrupt Ending" it's the majority of scholars who do.
I think your point about having additional authors to a text is a important one, particularly when comparing the Old/New Testaments. With texts like the ending of Pentateuch or 1 Samuel 9:9 they appear to be written by someone who isn't the traditional author of that text and yet we have no issue calling them inspired, yet when it comes to the New Testament many cannot accept the same theology on this. Was Mark the original author of 16:9-20, in my opinion no, does it matter to me, not really however I still read it as inspired and canonical. If you reject the longer ending I don't see why we should accept the work of the later 'editors' in the Old Testament aswell like in the aforementioned 1 Samuel 9:9
Hola Matthew saludos desde Colombia. Seria muy dificil si colocas los cc en español?. Gracias
Thank you!!!!!!
19:10 Although there are large and small letters in that ms, unless I'm mistaken, they're all in the capital form; none of the letters appear to be in what we now recognize as the lower-case Greek form. Perhaps that's why it's classified as majuscule.
The Bible is NOT EVOLVING; it is the eternally preserved Word of the Living God.
Hi Matt, Jim here, how can we be sure that the longer ending is more correct than the shorter one when you’re talking about 100 years difference. Plus the fact that we’re dealing with the forth century shorter ending and a fifth century longer ending. What’s the rationale that the longer ending is more accurate than the shorter ending then. Not only that but we have 400 years from when the gospel of mark was supposedly written without originals and only copies that even throws more confusion to the mix as to what is original and what isn’t. What are your thoughts.
It is a difficult test case to be sure, however the longer ending of Mark is quoted very early on, for instance in Justin Martyr, who wrote 165 AD. So in this case we have Church Father quotations that preceded the earliest manuscript evidence.
I have a question for you. I was once a charismatic until about a year or 2 ago when I discovered reformed theology. I am moving soon to a city that has mostly PCA churches and I may join one but then I saw that some PCA churches are tolerant of cigar smoking. What are your thoughts on cigar smoking as a christian? I always thought that was a sinful act.
You have much larger issues than cigars in the reformed calvinist doctrine.
If memory serves, it is most likely that Peter slapped the longer ending onto the gospel of Mark. There is vocabulary there that elsewhere is only found in the epistles of Peter.
Again it seems if longer version it only included word signs not specific signs so it added later which is why it does match Matthews version
why don't you have your email listed on your about page? I would like to ask you a question
Hm ive never hears the theory that mark wrote multiple copies interesting contribution to the discussion
Great video! However, did you mean to say the ending of the SCROLL would have been worn away after use. Christians invented the book (codex); Last page torn off..!? These do not work together chronologically. The outside of a rolled scroll is the end of the "book". It is highly probable that the parent document (maybe the autograph, maybe not) in which the shorter version was taken became compromised over time due to use. When the shorter version was copied and distributed, those distributed versions would not have the longer ending. It is very interesting that each version is prominent to its particular geography.
Codex Vaticanus is not fourth century either.
I will let you know that the Tyndale 1537 New Testament has the long ending of Mark. I own the updated The October Testament.
So what if somebody from the majority text church asked you to stand and affirm that he was reading the inspired word of God after reading the long ending of Mark? I guess you'd have to stand up and lie or else be viewed as weird.
Very good video. You should check out Mike Winger's long two hour video on this very topic, if you haven't already: th-cam.com/video/WJilpQsl4vc/w-d-xo.html
With that said, you shared more manuscripts and shared some new things that Mike didn't in his video. Another really early witness to the longer ending is Tatian's Diatessaron, from about 160-175 A.D.
I'd love for you to do another video just like this, but for John 7:53-8:11 on the woman caught in adultery (Pericope Adulterae).
Torn accidentally? Recover by oral?
So we come to the conclusion that the NKJV is superior 😎
Didn't he start by saying he's a critical text guy? And then he spent absolutely no time doing a critical review of the actual text of verses 9-20. Unbelievable...
Sir, "critical text" refers to the NA27 or UBS4 Greek New Testament, my preference for Greek texts.
@@MatthewEverhard My research does not confirm that "The Critical Text" is only based on two versions, which you seem to be claiming above. I understand that the notion of critical text is based on a comparative reading of many manuscripts and determining what readings are the most likely to be the original, taking into account concepts such as preferring the more difficult reading as more likely, etc. What am I missing here?
@@paul3441 Hello sir. You are correct that the Critical Text is based on dozens, even hundreds of manuscripts! The number of Greek manuscripts number over 5,000! But they don't all contain every text. Some are only portions or fragments. What I am saying here is that the choice of the Critical Text to relegate the longer ending to brackets or footnotes is only based on the two texts (three if you could the 304 commentary) that lack it, i.e. the ones that I showed you. Does that make sense sir?
@@MatthewEverhard If you're saying that, for round numbers, 4,998 of the 5,000 contain the identical same long ending as the KJV, then I understand what you're saying. But I have read in many places of at least two other endings, both being shorter than the long ending, but longer than verse 8. Do these such other/variant manuscripts not exist in your knowledge? Thank you.
Wasted so much time showing manuscripts that did nothing to answer the question posed in your title.
The question itself is, "What does the manuscript evidence suggest?" This is the point of the video - to examine the evidence.
It's the modem tribulations that leave the end of Mark 16 out, along with 6000 other words.
So forget the naughty modern translations.
In layman’s terms, the longer ending in the book of Mark is more accurate. Your welcome.
Where is God in the authorship? Mark did not write it but it is ascribed to Mark. The earliest manuscripts are from the 4th century, i.e, Almost 400 years after Jesus.The Quran clarifies all this confusion. Read the Quran with an open mind!
What is this guy doing? He says there are only two manuscripts that have the shorter ending, mentions a commentary without providing a date, and then mentions that 99 out of some 200 manuscripts have the shorter ending?! Worst video I've seen in a while.
He’s explaining the evidence and rationale behind the ending of Mark. Did so in such a way as to be scholarly but also that someone almost completely unfamiliar with textual criticism could understand, while also giving a visual on how one can examine manuscripts. A very informative and helpful video, and if that upsets you and makes you want to berate a minister just trying to help lay people understand an important issue, then you need to check yourself.
That's right - the only two ancient Greek mss that lack the longer ending (thus ending in 16:8) are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. There is also manuscript #304 which is actually a text + commentary. The statistic 99 of 200 that I gave refers to the ancient Aremenian translations of the Greek. Hope that helps!
@@WanderingCatholic It was an awful video based on its title. That is truth. Feedback is a gift.
@@MatthewEverhard So then there are over 100 total manuscripts that lack the longer ending; correct? And what about the other two endings? There are actually four different endings. But perhaps the most powerful evidence against the longer ending is the word choice, which is highly inconsistent with the rest of the book of Mark. And also, a high school student could recognize the sudden veering off the road in the account beginning in verse 9 where the writer feels they have to introduce a character that is already in the story. Also important is the fact that there are strange Pentecostal and other doctrines that can be traced back only to verses 9-20--nowhere else in scripture. And it would be the only account of Jesus speaking of speaking in tongues. I could go on, but I was hoping you would have addressed any of these issues based on the video's title.
I don’t think you listen very well Paul. Stop being so ideological! Pastor Matt presented very thorough and scholarly viewpoint! You sir are out of line! You need to learn some Christian virtues such as respect! He is not “this guy” And who are you and what are your credentials Paul?