12:23 - Not granted. Justin Martyr (160) and Tatian (170) and Irenaeus (190) use material from Mark 16:9-20. Irenaeus specifically quoted Mark 16:19. Their writings are over a century earlier than Codex Vaticanus' production-date. Also, your Metzgerian description of what is stated by Eusebius and Jerome is not quite right.
I am quite happy with v19 and 20 and there being quoted by early church fathers, these may actually be Marks words. It’s verse 18 which if read straight, would be brilliant, if you had two Christian’s together they would never get sick, ever, because they would always be healed! I personally do believe in healing, some get healed, some don’t. This was true of the apostles and it’s true now.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 , Book 3 is extant in Latin; Irenaeus wrote in Greek. But the Latin text's translator was usually relatively strict and literal. Look at Book 3 where Mark 16:19 is quoted, and you shall see that the quotation is quote explicit. Also, there are Greek annotations (in the margins of Greek manuscripts of the Gospels such as GA 72 and GA 1582) that affirm that Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in Book 3 of Against Heresies. I doubt very very much that the author of this annotation was relying on the Latin translation of Book 3.
I have not looked at this again recently but in the past I have been convinced that in the context of the whole book that the verse 8 ending was intentional. Yes it is jarring and abrupt which is why others felt they needed to add a bit more, probably a summary for other gospels. But that is a deliberate abruptness to inspire the reader to think, come to their own conclusion and plan their own action. The book of Mark constantly ask the question Who is Jesus? and now at the point of the empty tomb it is time for the reader to make their own decision on this question.
I am no Greek scholar but I have listened to a lot of arguments for and against. On one hand I want it left in my Bible with a footnote. On the other hand I do not teach from verses 9-20 and feel that it was most likely a scribal addition added quite early.
I would not accept 16:9ff as part of the original canon. However, I would still try to be courteous towards those who do, but I do feel strongly that anything taught in this longer ending needs to be taught elsewhere in the Bible. I would not build my theology on the longer ending only.
Some thoughts - (1) Mark is "Mr KAI", he uses "And" at the beginning of every sentence. Well almost every sentence, its part of his Style. But Mark 16:9-20 have a different style, not many "And"'s, no urgency. (2) The words in this passage, some are great , some are crazy: (2.1) Mary Magdalene, is introduced like she had not been talked about a few verses earlier (2.2) Snake handling and drinking poison as signs is a bit odd. (2.3) "he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe" - Does not feel like Jesus, same story in other Gospels does not read this way. (2.4) Missing from early documents. (2.5) Codex Vaticanus does not include it, instead leaving a space for when they find it. Conclusion: I go with the Codex Vaticanus gospels evidence.
The much bigger problem is that Mark is no gospel at all without the resurrected Christ appearing to witnesses. Imagine if all the gospels ended as you believe Mark ended. Some guy (presumably an angel) told the women that Jesus has risen, but offers no proof. The women are unconvinced because "they said nothing to anyone". Would we believe in Jesus Christ's resurrection if our faith depended on this "evidence"?
It is fitting for the closing of a book to have a stylistic shift, especially if the bulk of the book is pushing a momentum towards a conclusion; we should not expect the conclusive portion to also push with momentum toward something, because there is no something for it to push toward. If we consider the traditional ending, and we consider how it compares to Luke 10v17-20, then it seems rather fitting that Mary is mentioned to have had seven devils cast out of her, especially given the typological nature of the four Gospel accounts and Acts. Ultimately, we have good reason to trust that God has handed down His Scriptures, and I think this is the faith-based argument and therefore the most reliable. The seeming exceptionality of the ending of the Book Of Mark is very easily and reasonably explained, but the same cannot be said for the theory that God failed to preserve the ending. The idea that it ends at verse eight also seems to be a very weak theory; weaker still is the theory that the Church failed to preserve the ending before it wore out on every scroll. The only point of relevant argument I see, is the point that Eusebius and Jerome stated that the majority of manuscripts, which they had seen, lacked it, and this sufficiently explains why it is missing from Vaticanus and Siniaticus, but I don't find it sufficient to refute the traditional ending.
@@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah We all do our own research, and I understand yours. I love Mark’s Gospel, I use it all the time. I even quote the last two verses v19 and 20, which maybe written by Mark and are quoted by early church fathers. But v18 is the doctrine proof this is a spurious ending. I am a lover of Codex Bezae (Scrivener) which illustrates beautifully verse and passage corruption.
If the original ending fell off, or was otherwise destroyed, it would have been more likely to fall off of the end of a CODEX. In a SCROLL the last sheet would be rolled up in the middle, possibly attached to an umbilicus - so it would be preserved more easily.
Chuech fathers said Mark wrote the words of Peter. Hypothesis: Peter was martyred at chapter 16:8. Thst left Mark without the ending. Mark did end it, but they weren't the words of Peter but rather the words of Mark. The Codex Vatacanus was intact at verse 8 as Mark left Rome to avoid arrest and martyrdom. When it was copied into the Codex Siniaticus, the scribes left a gap at the end of Mark because they were aware of the completed book by Mark- long ending. Codex Alexandrinus has the long ending of Mark as he (Mark) was the Bishop of Alexandria pior to his death.
Scribes are more likely to add? This doesn't seem logical. An addition requires intention; a deletion does not. A deletion could result from inattentiveness, tiredness, senility, drunkenness, even assigning the task to your apprentice who doesn't know Greek well. Aside from a bit of addendum for explanation (John 5:3b-4), what else would motivate the scribe? Believing you are more inspired than the apostle? Intentionally steering the church wrong? Please explain.
I feel it's a scribal addition. Between the stylistic differences, and the theology I have a hard time believing Mark wrote the long ending. I tend toward the view that he was either interrupted and never finished it, or the original ending was damaged/destroyed in the course of time.
I believe Mark Goodacre developed the idea that the ending did finish at 16 v 8 intentionally. His thoughts were that Mark had consistently developed the idea of the Messianic secret throughout his gospel the mystery of which was only revealed after Jesus’ death. The sudden ending was part of Mark’s air of mystery inviting the reader to now go back through the gospel again and work out for themselves what must have happened. Dramatic irony.
Perhaps Mark intended from the very beginning that the scope of his work would be Jesus' *human* ministry, from his baptism by John the Baptist (who was regarded by many Jews as a great prophet, so that was an important starting point) to his death and resurrection and just that. Mark thus excludes everything about how Jesus was born and raised, just mentions his mother Mary by name in fleeting and his father just as "the carpenter". (He seems to assume his audience already knows about that from other sources. Luke mentions in the introduction to his gospel that "many" - not just one or two - already had undertaken to compile and give an account about what had happened among them.) And Mark may have chosen to be equally eclectic when it comes to what happened *after* the resurrection. And I agree that the style of the Greek long ending differs from Mark's Greek otherwise.
John was also the last old testament prophet, and Elijah that was to come. To prepare the way of the Lord, preparing the people by the waters of Repentance (like a cerimonial washing before meeting the Lord at Sinai), and being the Forerunner to Christ.
I am very familiar with Justin Martyr's works, particularly First Apology Second Apology Dialogue with Trypho the Jew Which writing is the last part of Mark 16:9+ referred to? Thank so much for your channel. Love it!
Justin hardly ever makes direct references to the passages he uses. In First Apology chapter 45, as he interprets Psalm 110, makes a strong allusion to Mark 16:20 (blended with Luke 24:52, just as one would expect a person to do who was using a Synoptics-harmony, as Justin did). As Justin refers to how the apostles went forth from Jerusalem preaching everywhere, he used three words - exelthontes pantachou ekeruxan - which appear together nowhere else except in Mark 16:20, in a different order. In chapter 50 of First Apology, Justin alludes to the scene in Mark 16:14, using the phrase, “And later, when he had risen from the dead and was seen by them.”
There are only two Greek mss missing it and have spaces for it there... both of these mss disagree with each other in the gospels some 3000 times alone and one almost always agrees with the Byzantine against the other! Then there are early church fathers who quote it who did so 2 centuries before these two mss were written. If the vocabulary argument is to stand, then there are several chapters worth of material in Mark that needs to be removed. hmmm why is this even a discussion?
Thanks Ross. Vocabulary is just one argument, not the argument. :) I believe God inspired the original manuscripts, and so our task is to determine what those said as best we can. Blessings!
The tradition is that Mark recorded Peter's sermon. We have all been in a sermon when the preacher realizes that he has gone on to long and finishes up fast which fits Mark 16:9 -20. Blessings.
Well, since you asked: I believe that verses 9-20 were in the text when the production-stage of Mark's account ended and the transmission-stage began. That means that verses 9-20 are part of the original text, regardless of who put them there. Also: Your description of Sinaiticus' testimony (not "Siniaticus") is incorrect. Your representation of Eusebius' statement and Jerome's statement (from Ad Hedibiam in which Jerome abridges part of Eusebius' Ad Marinum) is flawed. "Cyrian" is not a thing. Cf. Bruce Terry's online essay re: stylistic differences (such as "immediately") 8:08 - Are any of the composition that end with "gar" /narratives/? Not as I recall. A parenthetical phrase intended to casually qualify a remark is quite different from a /narrative/ ending with gar. 10:27 - Are they, though? I recommend revisiting the overwhelming evidence for the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20. I think you mentioned about 3% of the relevant patristic evidence.
@@bma Books have literally been written on the topic so I can't get into many details. Those that disagree with me won't hurt my feelings. I believe that Siniaticus is a poorly made copy from the early 1840s by Constantine Simonides. Even if he was not scribe A, we have the advantage today of viewing pictures of the Siniaticus online and can see that it is indeed a poorly made copy filled with numerous corrections (scribes B, C, and D) which results in nearly endless possibility of readings. It skips from I Chronicles 19:17 on one line to Ezra 9:9 on the very next line. And specifically with the long ended of Mark, scribe D has inserted a cancel sheet (4 pages) at this exact location at the end of Mark and beginning of Luke. Elsewhere (eg. Psalms 28-29) we find scribe D's work to be impeccable, but on this cancel sheet the letter count per line varies wildly as if he is trying to judge how to space out his writing to end neatly with the new beginning of Luke but with fewer words than scribe A had used on those pages. He manages to make unique mistakes like saying that Mary is from Judaea. This messy text is nothing like how the Jews have carefully copied the books of the old Testament and so I chose to treat it as an unreliable witness. I am not as well versed yet on Vaticanus so I can't say as much. However, I refuse to accept a text that appeared one day in the Vatican library with no provenance is a reliable witness. Now that is just two manuscripts out of all of the manuscripts extant, so I don't think it a big ask to be allowed to remove them from my personal consideration of texts.
I would like to add that my inability to read Greek means having to depend on others to do the manuscript readings and discoveries rather than being able to do it myself as well. That is the main impetus for me to learn Greek which brought me to finding your channel. Your classes intrigue me, but I may have to wait for round 2 or find another course.
If I may field that: Vaticanus has a prolonged blank space (with a fully blank column) after 16:8. Sinaiticus has a cancel-sheet (replacement-pages) in which the text has been drastically compacted. (A full answer would be more detailed; the thing to see is that both MSS' scribes show awareness of the absent verses.
For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. 1Co 15:3-4
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me very probable, that just like St. Peter, St. Mark gets arrested or sth like that, and Mark who is in prison or before getting arrested, charges one of his friends or followers, to end his Gospel, OR maybe sth happens to Mark, and St. Peter charges one of his followers, to end the work of St. Mark.... Any way, It seems to me as a reader, very unlikely that a book like this, is left very suddenly without any Ending or a co-called conclusion
If it’s not original, 16:9-20 was part of the earliest texts we have, and well before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I’m not arguing either way. But Tatian has the entire section in his Diatessaron some 200+ years before S and V and well before Nicea. This doesn’t prove it’s original. But it does strongly indicate that for most of the life of what’s known as “Mark,” the longer ending was associated with it…
I think the answer is very clear. Mark was written very early in Rome. It ended in 16:8 because the women were still alive and they took over after 16:8 with an oral testimony. Mark, like all the NT documents, was designed to be read outloud in the churches. It was read and had that cliff hanger at 16:8 and then the women at the tomb took over the narrative right after "gar" with direct eyewitness testimony to an enthralled and captivated Roman church audience. I think a lot of street performers of the ancient world probably employed a similar story telling technique (remember that the first gentile believers, especially in the major cities, were infact poor commoners). This was all forgotten because of Nero's intense persecution of the Roman church, unfortunately. But, I think this way of looking at it makes the most sense.
I find too many problems with the ending. For one: [9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week.... This would have Jesus in the tomb 3 days and 4 nights. Picking up snakes with there hands, drinking deadly poison? Speaking in new tongues?
I have heard someone present that Mark a likely non central witness was maybe recording a sermon of Peter. The main part of Mark is Mark's recording of Peter using Mark's language. The longer ending is an addition by someone else, for all we know Peter. If Mark was written in Rome, Matthew in Judea and John in Ephesus, then earliest churches in the East would more likely have easier and earlier access to Matthew and John. This coupled with the East having better weather for document preservation leads to the early papyrii favoring them over Mark. My other question is if we had a fragment that wasn't connected to the rest of Mark, would we realize it was Mark's ending?
It’s funny because I’ve heard the opposite about if you have 15 people in a room and you have them all right the Gettysburg address it is more likely than anything that they are going to forget parts than add parts!,
Great video as always. I personally do not believe the longer ending of Mark is inspired. Speaking to external evidences, the fact that other different endings existed lends itself to the conclusion that some scribes were trying to "fill in" what they believe was missing. I grant though that elements of the longer ending of Mark have early ancient attestation in some patristic writings, but its absence in Codex Siniaticus and Vaticanus carries a lot of weight. In addition, Eusebius and Jerome's reflection on the majority of manuscripts they had available to them lacked the longer ending. What does this mean in regards to God preserving His Word... did we lose God's words (from my position)? I would say No. God preserved His Words for us today through a rich manuscript tradition and so He preserved the Words that He wanted us to have. If one grants that there might have been a longer ending of Mark but that it was lost, or that Mark just didn't finish for whatever reason... well then that was ordained by God to end the Gospel of Mark where He did in verse 8. Up until Mark 16:8, nothing else about Mark's gospel is disputed. The Gospel was well received in the early church - in fact all (4) were. The fact that all the Gospels were recognized by the church to be from God very early on testifies to me that God preserved His Word (through the manuscript tradition) as He intended. We have exactly what God wanted us to have and He has blessed us with historical documents (both in the preservation of scripture and in writings of the early saints) that give us confidence that He did just that.
@@bma I can't wait. I have you on notification, so when it comes out I'll see it. We are in day 48 of the lockdown here in South Africa, so I'm binging on your videos, which has allowed me to catch up on the ones I missed out on.
IT SEEM'S ME _ that there's nothing outlaw implicity at Mark Sixteen nine to Twenty indeed. On the another viewpoint being take into account Whether by Scholars, if they were able to believe in or by Coerence of insteady of by faith coming from Ordinaries People just ; Won't be fair for us to get wrong. At my opinion the Mark Chapter Sixteen eight ( nine to twenty ) long ending makes sence of accordingly to whole Bíblical picture.
No, it is not inspired. There is not smooth transition between v 9 and 8, plus v 9 reads like v 1 is starting all over again. The theology of drinking poison and handling snakes should be applied literally. I'm not convinced by exegetes who interpret it to mean otherwise. Those signs mentioned there should be following us because there is nothing to suggest they will cease, but I don't see them happening.
There is a fourth possibility for what happened to the ending. It is possible the Mark stopped writing at verse 8 for some reason, such as the ones you mentioned. Perhaps he was imprisoned and could not finish. But then he could have finished where he left off after some period of time, perhaps several years, and then he wrote the ending. In the meantime, copies of the unfinished document could have been distributed in his absence. After he finished the text, other copies were made either of the entire document or even just the ending, which were later distributed. This could account for the fact that there are these discrepancies. It could also account for the supposed stylistic/vocabulary differences between the ending and the rest of his text, as his style and vocabulary could have changed somewhat during the intervening time. I do not speak or write the same way I did 20 years ago. It would be reasonable that the same was true of Mark. Furthermore, there are some very significant theological issues contained in the longer ending of Mark, which are very controversial in modern Christianity. It is very possible (I would argue that it is likely) that many, if not all, of the scholars who deny that the long ending is original or inspired are motivated more by theological bias than they would ever be honest enough to admit.
I appreciate your thoughts here. These are helpful. I'm not so sure I would agree that the reason for rejecting the longer ending is theological. Those who reject it include the types of scholars you would expect to hold to the kinds of theological positions you allude to. Thanks for your comments! Really helpful!
@@bma I'm glad I could be of help. As for the theological basis for opinions on the matter, I doubt that any scholar would admit that their theology influences their opinions on such a passage with such powerful and controversial theological implications. There are other textual variations that hold theological implications. I am sure that scholars' opinions on those passages are likely also influenced by their theology. One of the problems I have had with the UBSGNT text (and presumably all other Greek texts) is the fact that only a small handful of scholars are basically making decisions on the text which all other Christians use and by which virtually all contemporary translations are made. There is no larger unified body of trans-denominational Christians who make the decisions. And in most cases, we get little or no detailed information on the reasoning behind the decisions made. I find it refreshing that the Tyndale publishers are planning on making available a detailed commentary on the various textual decisions they have made, in spite of the fact that the text was basically created by two individuals, though presumably with input from about a dozen others.
I agree, having the commentary by the Tyndale editors will be helpful. The more people understand these issues, the more they can be discussed and argued. This is part of the role of scholarly journals, but the church largely ignores these and they remain the realm of scholars for the most part.
It's a good point. It's perhaps significant that though tolkien wrote all the Lord of the Rings the style fluctuates dramatically. The first few chapters are like the hobbit but then the style darkens rapidly. By the time we reach the third book tolkien is desperate to finish and events that would have taken a whole chapter are covered in only a few pages and the style becomes almost shakespearean.
Appreciate the presentation. I am one who thinks Mark ended it at v. 8, that the rest is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. I did a message that explained this to the congregation and it was used to bolster the trust we have in the work of legit textual critics who have a high view of the inspiration and preservation of the Scripture by God. It took me 50 years to conclude this; nonetheless, I'll not argue with godly believers who think it inspired.
The Gospel author does not identify himself directly. Tradition says that Mark wrote it. Maybe this is because God is happy to inspire more than 1 author within one piece of writing. The book of Proverbs has multiple authors. Just because someone other than Mark may have added verses 9 to 20 does not mean that God did not inspire that part.
We know Moses didn't finish the Torah. It's still inspired. Why does it have to be Mark himself that finished it to be inspired? I take an approach of cautious acceptance with 16:9-11.
I believe verses 9-20 belong in chapter 16 of Mark. I believe it is inspired. I am not sure if Mark wrote it or had a scribe write it. I would point to the late Dr. Chuck Misslers teaching on these verses. It's supernatural!!
@@k-dogg9086 Then his own disciples disobeyed him. They baptized in the name of Jesus. That passage is no original to the Gospel of Matthew. Most scholars know this.
Based on this video, combined with trusting God to handle His Scriptures, it sounds like Mark wrote the traditional ending. The most reasonable theory given for how an original ending may have been lost, is the theory that it wore out because it's at the end of the scroll. The idea that any measures taken to preserve the ending were insufficient, is really just absurdly unlikely, and makes for the weaker theory. The idea that the account ends with the women saying nothing to anyone, is also rather absurd. Therefore, the most likely possibility is that some people find the ending to seem strange and they therefore impose their own bias and thereby reject it. However, we have the cross reference of Luke 10 v17-20 which clarifies that this is a way in which the Lord would speak of spiritual matters, giving no sufficient cause to reject the traditional ending. QUOTE: "And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding, in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." Men are only regarded as scholars if they are institutionalized into the consensus of the modern academic institution, and if we consider the pitfalls of institutionalism, then we must consider the appeal to consensus/authority to be insufficient. I'm by no means saying that institutions have no great value, but instead I am saying that along with the great value of institutionalism there are also pitfalls. It's obviously possible for a book to end with "gar", if indeed there is a complete sentence there. Regardless of whether we agree with the traditional ending or not, the word "gar" is the final word in that sentence, so the argument that the book cannot end with "gar" is simply invalid and not worthy of consideration.
I see the comments are full of ideas influenced by higher criticism, lower criticism, human rationalism, impericism and post-modernism, none of which can lead to truth and certainty. Before someone can answer the question that is being asked, one must start with a biblical epistemology. Until people, including the scholars, pastors, skeptics and teachers, are willing to start with a biblical epistemology this conversation will be nothing but a series of conjectures and refutations, always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Hhmmm....I tend to lean toward something happened in Mark’s life while he was trying to finish. At 16:8, perhaps, the Romans were coming by horseback (with their tin helmets on). Needless to say, the other gospels tell us the full story. And while we don’t have the full autographs, we have enough information to fill in the blanks. Maybe we can compare this to a crime scene investigation. We only have half of a receipt from Target (the end of Mark) but we have the video from Target from that evening (the other gospels).
@@cardcounter21 yeah that’s a good point. Or maybe that text got damaged. The original autographs are perfect but we don’t have those anymore. If one is struggling with doubt, God can handle that. We can ask God to reveal Himself to us and confirm the Scriptures for us. If it’s a spiritual thing then an intellectual argument is only going to go so far. It’s why the study of God is sometimes referred to as metaphysical. It’s beyond the physical.
@@jimburke7235 And did God _choose_ not to protect against damage or to preserve the perfect originals - therefore leaving an imperfect document as his legacy?
Ivan Panin did some interesting work looking at mathematical properties of the Greek New Testament which Dr Chuck Missler referred to in his teaching. Also, from the images I have seen of the codices in question, I think their reliability is questionable at best. All scripture is God breathed and I see the ending of Mark 16 as inspired also. Paul was bitten by a snake in Acts 27 yet he was unharmed. Just because the Scriptures don't record the other signs specifically happening to someone doesn't mean they didn't. Also, the text does not say that those specific signs will accompany every individual believer. Many presume Isaiah was referred to as the person sawn in two in Hebrews 11 but that event is not recorded in the Bible. Textual critics also say that there is more than one author of Isaiah. I don't believe that is true because of John 12:39, but even if there was more than one author, no serious Bible believing Christians would doubt the inspiration of the entire book of Isaiah.
The longer ending is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It’s foolish to cut it out, in the codex sianaticus there is sufficient space left to fit in those verses.
The 'oldest and best manuscripts' (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) were not the oldest and best when they were written in the 4th century and at that time they were not deemed the best (1) because they were not copied and (2) they differ greatly between themselves.
My friend what you can tell to Jesus about: Mt 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. and to Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,.. Also to: 2 Pet 1:21 For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. so according to you, all of this verse are wrong? look all of you are trying to proof that the Cat have 5 foot hiding your perverse doctrine of cessationism don’t you?... and because you do not believe clearly in the miracle today, prophecy and tongue are trying to cover with trash argument against the reality of this verse.... this old fashion argument that you are using mean nothing... look the Westminster, John Wycliffe, all the Puritans, even John Calvin, Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards accepted the veracity of the historical validation for this verse base in the Majority Text, preserved around the World... come on... man... what wrong with you....
Problem with old manuscripts is that they are not maintained well after they are recopied. Whey? because there is now a new manuscript. In old manuscripts pages are lost and while new manuscripts are based on the last complete manuscript. Thus a newer manuscript that was preserved by an accredited school of scribes is always better than an older manuscript.
Why do so many "scholars" overlook the simple fact that if Mark ends at 16:8, there are no witnesses to Christ's resurrection, disqualifying Mark from being any "gospel" at all! .... Because according to Paul the gospel by which we are saved is; Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; He was buried and raised from the dead on the third day; He appeared to Peter and the twelve then to more than 500 brothers, then finally to Paul.....If Mark fails at the end to produce the resurrected Christ, then Mark fails to present the Gospel...And when the "young man", presumably an angel, says to the women that Jesus "has risen" but offers no proof, he leaves the women unconvinced because "they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.".......Imagine if Matthew, Luke, and John all ended this way! No actual proof of the risen Christ?...just some guy said he has risen? Who is this guy? Did he actually see Jesus risen? What proof does he have? And that is how Mark ends?
thanks, compelling point, and I found a lot of important insights just in these comments here - have also interesting videos in a playlist 'Untold History of the Bible' here on YT that bring further light into these issues, it's a fair amount of watch time, but if you start with video 4, then 2 (then 5 or 3 - last 1) ...
4:00 - the speaker is simply ignorant of Irenaeus' quotation of Mark 16:19 (c. 180) and Tatian's incorporation of Mark 16L9-20 in his Diatessaron (170s). LET THE STUDENT BEWARE. If you learn from the ignorant, you will be more ignorant.
You don’t have any authority to accept or reject any part. It is well known that St Mark taught beyond 16:8 even if Mark himself didn’t write it. First the Greek church Divine Liturgy incorporated it prior to the 381AD determination of biblical canon. Second the Latin church has accepted it and it possesses the full authority given to St Peter to determine issues as such. The claims made here hit the solid wall of prayer which determines faith, thus faith is to be placed in the longer ending.
Most scholars are fools and that is why they reject the longer ending. No one understands what they are actually reading anyway, they are just reading words.
No we shouldn't treat it as inspired Scripture, the original authors were inspired, not additions throughout the ages. If we treated as inspired we might as well throw out textual criticism altogether
Hello friend, it sadden's me you think the full ending is not inspired scripture. Look at the testimony of persons like Tyndale, and his NT (Tyndale Bible 1534) that had the long ending of Mark and was burned at the stake. Can I suggest that you buy a copy of his NT or at least view it online and give a bit of credit where it is due. Not to mention the Coverdale Bible 1535, Matthew Bible 1537, The Great Bible 1539, Geneva Bible 1560, Bishops Bible 1568, King James Bible 1611 etc which all had the full ending. In reference to throwing out textual criticism that would actually be a GOOD IDEA. As it was the Church that were guardians of the word NOT textual critics. God bless.
I hate 'textual Criticism.' that implies human science is more reliable than God's ability to complete his holy scriptures! lets just study it and analyze it just a little more to make it "more reliable"~What?!!
check the videos that I keep here in the playlist 'Untold History of the Bible', I would suggest starting with video 4, then 2 (then 5 or 3 - last 1) you will know why and how that is just one of the endless attacks on the Bible
Why is it not asked or entertained whether Mark could have added an ending after the rest of his Gospel had already circulated? It was his account. It's understandable that he would have. And this would well explain how it clearly received full acceptance in its own day (not to be doubted for centuries, despite the clear evidence that it once may not have been included). John 21, for instance, is clearly an added ending by John. There are no manuscripts that don't contain it. But as far as most (non-manuscript) reasons for rejecting Mark 16 go, the same apply to the unquestionably Johannine last chapter of the 4th Gospel. Thanks! I enjoy the videos.
Thanks John! I think the main reason is the different vocabulary, style and theology of the passage. Also the argument that Eusebius indicates that the majority of manuscripts in his day lacked the ending is suggestive. Thanks for your comment!
this passage is so well attested that no one should doubt its originality ... and to believe that the ending was lost is to believe that a part of the canon is lost... no it's not lost, the Ending is preserved in almost all of the Greek MSS.... it should not even be doubted for a second, it is the ending found in almost all of the Greek witnesses, and the two Greek MSS which do not contain it, is not trustworthy at all... they are very poor MSS and two of the most corrupt MSS known to man... and there are one other MS, not a MS proper, but a commentary MS, which is missing the verses, that's all, one Greek commentary MS + two corrupted Greek uncials which disagree with each other thousands of times.... do not listen to modern scholars who are trying to discredit the vast majority of Greek MSS extant, the scholars are wrong, the MSS are right... thanks... :)
Can you support your assertions about the poor quality of the manuscripts that don’t include the longer ending? For your argument to stand you will need to. Scholars are not thoughtless men with an agenda. They operate out of a desire for truth just like you and I, complete with the same biases we have. They just try to argue and provide reasons to support their positions. We must all do the same.
D., On the other hand, th-cam.com/video/dsVJVD4FAXQ/w-d-xo.html (41 minutes) and th-cam.com/video/zRs6hgKaaaI/w-d-xo.html (26 minutes). 0:55 - "a number"-- or, *six.* Why not just say "six"? 1:15 - you are aware that the one MS with the Freer Logion has verses 9-20, right? The Freer Logion appears between v. 14 and v. 15. So it's an interpolated form of the usual 12 verses, not something that circulated independent of vv. 9-20, right? 2:30 - "Most scholars" - yes, but are these people who have looked into the subject, or are they academic parrots who mindlessly absorb Metzger's Textual Commentary? 3:09 - It's spelled "Sinaiticus." And, no, its space is not sufficient to hold vv. 9-20. 3:28 - If Vaticanus and Sinaiticus /erroneously/ omit vv. 9-20, then their reliability should be called into question. So it's circular to argue from the premise of their reliability. 3:59 - Irenaeus specifically quotes Mark 16:19 in "Against Heresies," which significantly predates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus -- c. 180. Other evidence in favor of the inclusion of vv. 9-20 = Justin, Epistula Apostolorum, Tatian. All from the 100s. 4:20 - Jerome, in Ad Hedibia, was recycling Eusebius' Ad Marinum. And you're misrepresenting what Eusebius said in Ad Marinum. (See the composition Eusebius of Caesarea - Gospel Problems & Solutions.) 4:49 - Who is "Cyrian"?? 4:50 - How much of the Gospel of Mark does Origen use? Is it unusual for Origen to not use a 12-verse segment of the Gospel of Mark? Have you bothered to establish and kind of baseline for what we should expect from Origen? 5:21 - Copyists are more likely to add than to delete? James Royse's research says otherwise. I recommend getting acquainted with it. 6:07 - What's your baseline, again? How many once-words words appear in a typical 12-verse segment of Mark? Is the amount of once-used words in vv. 9-20 higher than in any other 12-verse segments? Look and see. The answer is No. 6:57 - Theological objections? Really? 8:12 - Ending a speech (Protagoras) with gar is quite different from ending a narrative with gar.
Hey James, I'd love to know why you feel this is such an important subject? I've got lots of other videos on TH-cam but this is the one you keep commenting on. What is at stake for you in this discussion?
Ohhhh snapp! Great objections, somewhat snarkily presented! (I tend towards the Longer Ending, but also appreciate how graciously Darryl has responded to his critics.)
@@bma Hey, I'd love to know why you don't ensourage people to withdraw their false statements and replace them with true statements and STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE.
I doubt the contested ending of Mark for two reasons. #1 The Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus. #2 What is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? There is no such name.
Matthew 28: 18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.19 Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
12:23 - Not granted. Justin Martyr (160) and Tatian (170) and Irenaeus (190) use material from Mark 16:9-20. Irenaeus specifically quoted Mark 16:19. Their writings are over a century earlier than Codex Vaticanus' production-date.
Also, your Metzgerian description of what is stated by Eusebius and Jerome is not quite right.
I am quite happy with v19 and 20 and there being quoted by early church fathers, these may actually be Marks words. It’s verse 18 which if read straight, would be brilliant, if you had two Christian’s together they would never get sick, ever, because they would always be healed! I personally do believe in healing, some get healed, some don’t. This was true of the apostles and it’s true now.
You appear on just about every video on the ending of Mark.
You think Iraneus' writings were not altered?
@@MichaelTheophilus906 ,
Book 3 is extant in Latin; Irenaeus wrote in Greek. But the Latin text's translator was usually relatively strict and literal. Look at Book 3 where Mark 16:19 is quoted, and you shall see that the quotation is quote explicit. Also, there are Greek annotations (in the margins of Greek manuscripts of the Gospels such as GA 72 and GA 1582) that affirm that Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in Book 3 of Against Heresies. I doubt very very much that the author of this annotation was relying on the Latin translation of Book 3.
@@davidclavey2:59
I have not looked at this again recently but in the past I have been convinced that in the context of the whole book that the verse 8 ending was intentional. Yes it is jarring and abrupt which is why others felt they needed to add a bit more, probably a summary for other gospels. But that is a deliberate abruptness to inspire the reader to think, come to their own conclusion and plan their own action. The book of Mark constantly ask the question Who is Jesus? and now at the point of the empty tomb it is time for the reader to make their own decision on this question.
I am no Greek scholar but I have listened to a lot of arguments for and against. On one hand I want it left in my Bible with a footnote. On the other hand I do not teach from verses 9-20 and feel that it was most likely a scribal addition added quite early.
I would not accept 16:9ff as part of the original canon. However, I would still try to be courteous towards those who do, but I do feel strongly that anything taught in this longer ending needs to be taught elsewhere in the Bible. I would not build my theology on the longer ending only.
Very wise. Thank you for sharing!
same.
Some thoughts - (1) Mark is "Mr KAI", he uses "And" at the beginning of every sentence. Well almost every sentence, its part of his Style. But Mark 16:9-20 have a different style, not many "And"'s, no urgency. (2) The words in this passage, some are great , some are crazy: (2.1) Mary Magdalene, is introduced like she had not been talked about a few verses earlier (2.2) Snake handling and drinking poison as signs is a bit odd. (2.3) "he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe" - Does not feel like Jesus, same story in other Gospels does not read this way. (2.4) Missing from early documents. (2.5) Codex Vaticanus does not include it, instead leaving a space for when they find it. Conclusion: I go with the Codex Vaticanus gospels evidence.
The much bigger problem is that Mark is no gospel at all without the resurrected Christ appearing to witnesses. Imagine if all the gospels ended as you believe Mark ended. Some guy (presumably an angel) told the women that Jesus has risen, but offers no proof. The women are unconvinced because "they said nothing to anyone". Would we believe in Jesus Christ's resurrection if our faith depended on this "evidence"?
It is fitting for the closing of a book to have a stylistic shift, especially if the bulk of the book is pushing a momentum towards a conclusion; we should not expect the conclusive portion to also push with momentum toward something, because there is no something for it to push toward.
If we consider the traditional ending, and we consider how it compares to Luke 10v17-20, then it seems rather fitting that Mary is mentioned to have had seven devils cast out of her, especially given the typological nature of the four Gospel accounts and Acts.
Ultimately, we have good reason to trust that God has handed down His Scriptures, and I think this is the faith-based argument and therefore the most reliable. The seeming exceptionality of the ending of the Book Of Mark is very easily and reasonably explained, but the same cannot be said for the theory that God failed to preserve the ending. The idea that it ends at verse eight also seems to be a very weak theory; weaker still is the theory that the Church failed to preserve the ending before it wore out on every scroll.
The only point of relevant argument I see, is the point that Eusebius and Jerome stated that the majority of manuscripts, which they had seen, lacked it, and this sufficiently explains why it is missing from Vaticanus and Siniaticus, but I don't find it sufficient to refute the traditional ending.
@@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah We all do our own research, and I understand yours. I love Mark’s Gospel, I use it all the time. I even quote the last two verses v19 and 20, which maybe written by Mark and are quoted by early church fathers. But v18 is the doctrine proof this is a spurious ending. I am a lover of Codex Bezae (Scrivener) which illustrates beautifully verse and passage corruption.
@@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah actually Jerome is quoting Eusebius, so you can omit his witness. Worse he put the longer ending into the Vulgate.
If the original ending fell off, or was otherwise destroyed, it would have been more likely to fall off of the end of a CODEX. In a SCROLL the last sheet would be rolled up in the middle, possibly attached to an umbilicus - so it would be preserved more easily.
Thanks for the clarification!
Chuech fathers said Mark wrote the words of Peter. Hypothesis: Peter was martyred at chapter 16:8. Thst left Mark without the ending. Mark did end it, but they weren't the words of Peter but rather the words of Mark. The Codex Vatacanus was intact at verse 8 as Mark left Rome to avoid arrest and martyrdom. When it was copied into the Codex Siniaticus, the scribes left a gap at the end of Mark because they were aware of the completed book by Mark- long ending. Codex Alexandrinus has the long ending of Mark as he (Mark) was the Bishop of Alexandria pior to his death.
That is possible. Hard to prove (as are all theories), but possible. Thanks for commenting!
My problem with that is how late it makes the writing. Otherwise, seems plausible enough.
Didn't Paul mention Mark leaving he and Barnabas too and think it is similar?
Scribes are more likely to add? This doesn't seem logical. An addition requires intention; a deletion does not. A deletion could result from inattentiveness, tiredness, senility, drunkenness, even assigning the task to your apprentice who doesn't know Greek well. Aside from a bit of addendum for explanation (John 5:3b-4), what else would motivate the scribe? Believing you are more inspired than the apostle? Intentionally steering the church wrong? Please explain.
I feel it's a scribal addition. Between the stylistic differences, and the theology I have a hard time believing Mark wrote the long ending. I tend toward the view that he was either interrupted and never finished it, or the original ending was damaged/destroyed in the course of time.
The Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus.
I believe Mark Goodacre developed the idea that the ending did finish at 16 v 8 intentionally. His thoughts were that Mark had consistently developed the idea of the Messianic secret throughout his gospel the mystery of which was only revealed after Jesus’ death. The sudden ending was part of Mark’s air of mystery inviting the reader to now go back through the gospel again and work out for themselves what must have happened. Dramatic irony.
myster-thriller from non-believer to non believers masked as a gospel.
Perhaps Mark intended from the very beginning that the scope of his work would be Jesus' *human* ministry, from his baptism by John the Baptist (who was regarded by many Jews as a great prophet, so that was an important starting point) to his death and resurrection and just that. Mark thus excludes everything about how Jesus was born and raised, just mentions his mother Mary by name in fleeting and his father just as "the carpenter". (He seems to assume his audience already knows about that from other sources. Luke mentions in the introduction to his gospel that "many" - not just one or two - already had undertaken to compile and give an account about what had happened among them.) And Mark may have chosen to be equally eclectic when it comes to what happened *after* the resurrection.
And I agree that the style of the Greek long ending differs from Mark's Greek otherwise.
Thanks for sharing and for your comments! I appreciate your thoughtfulness!
And John the Immerser was a priest that declared the Spotless Lamb of God, something a priest did before offering the sacrifice.
John was also the last old testament prophet, and Elijah that was to come. To prepare the way of the Lord, preparing the people by the waters of Repentance (like a cerimonial washing before meeting the Lord at Sinai), and being the Forerunner to Christ.
I think it is more likely things get left out than get added. Which is why I generally favor the majority texts.
I am very familiar with Justin Martyr's works, particularly
First Apology
Second Apology
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
Which writing is the last part of Mark 16:9+ referred to?
Thank so much for your channel. Love it!
Justin hardly ever makes direct references to the passages he uses. In First Apology chapter 45, as he interprets Psalm 110, makes a strong allusion to Mark 16:20 (blended with Luke 24:52, just as one would expect a person to do who was using a Synoptics-harmony, as Justin did). As Justin refers to how the apostles went forth from Jerusalem preaching everywhere, he used three words - exelthontes pantachou ekeruxan - which appear together nowhere else except in Mark 16:20, in a different order.
In chapter 50 of First Apology, Justin alludes to the scene in Mark 16:14, using the phrase, “And later, when he had risen from the dead and was seen by them.”
There are only two Greek mss missing it and have spaces for it there... both of these mss disagree with each other in the gospels some 3000 times alone and one almost always agrees with the Byzantine against the other! Then there are early church fathers who quote it who did so 2 centuries before these two mss were written. If the vocabulary argument is to stand, then there are several chapters worth of material in Mark that needs to be removed. hmmm why is this even a discussion?
Thanks Ross. Vocabulary is just one argument, not the argument. :) I believe God inspired the original manuscripts, and so our task is to determine what those said as best we can. Blessings!
Why would one of the gospels end with an incomplete account? That is a fair question...
The tradition is that Mark recorded Peter's sermon. We have all been in a sermon when the preacher realizes that he has gone on to long and finishes up fast which fits Mark 16:9 -20. Blessings.
I must say that is the best, funniest, and most relatable explanation for the Shorter Ending. Thanks.
Well, since you asked:
I believe that verses 9-20 were in the text when the production-stage of Mark's account ended and the transmission-stage began. That means that verses 9-20 are part of the original text, regardless of who put them there.
Also:
Your description of Sinaiticus' testimony (not "Siniaticus") is incorrect.
Your representation of Eusebius' statement and Jerome's statement (from Ad Hedibiam in which Jerome abridges part of Eusebius' Ad Marinum) is flawed.
"Cyrian" is not a thing.
Cf. Bruce Terry's online essay re: stylistic differences (such as "immediately")
8:08 - Are any of the composition that end with "gar" /narratives/? Not as I recall. A parenthetical phrase intended to casually qualify a remark is quite different from a /narrative/ ending with gar.
10:27 - Are they, though?
I recommend revisiting the overwhelming evidence for the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20. I think you mentioned about 3% of the relevant patristic evidence.
I don't put much weight in א and B so the choice for me is simply to follow the manuscripts used by the church since the beginning.
Interesting. What do you believe is wrong with Siniaticus and Vaticanus? Thanks for your comment!
@@bma Books have literally been written on the topic so I can't get into many details. Those that disagree with me won't hurt my feelings.
I believe that Siniaticus is a poorly made copy from the early 1840s by Constantine Simonides. Even if he was not scribe A, we have the advantage today of viewing pictures of the Siniaticus online and can see that it is indeed a poorly made copy filled with numerous corrections (scribes B, C, and D) which results in nearly endless possibility of readings. It skips from I Chronicles 19:17 on one line to Ezra 9:9 on the very next line. And specifically with the long ended of Mark, scribe D has inserted a cancel sheet (4 pages) at this exact location at the end of Mark and beginning of Luke. Elsewhere (eg. Psalms 28-29) we find scribe D's work to be impeccable, but on this cancel sheet the letter count per line varies wildly as if he is trying to judge how to space out his writing to end neatly with the new beginning of Luke but with fewer words than scribe A had used on those pages. He manages to make unique mistakes like saying that Mary is from Judaea. This messy text is nothing like how the Jews have carefully copied the books of the old Testament and so I chose to treat it as an unreliable witness.
I am not as well versed yet on Vaticanus so I can't say as much. However, I refuse to accept a text that appeared one day in the Vatican library with no provenance is a reliable witness. Now that is just two manuscripts out of all of the manuscripts extant, so I don't think it a big ask to be allowed to remove them from my personal consideration of texts.
I would like to add that my inability to read Greek means having to depend on others to do the manuscript readings and discoveries rather than being able to do it myself as well. That is the main impetus for me to learn Greek which brought me to finding your channel. Your classes intrigue me, but I may have to wait for round 2 or find another course.
Thanks for your comments! I hope I can help you in some way!
If I may field that:
Vaticanus has a prolonged blank space (with a fully blank column) after 16:8. Sinaiticus has a cancel-sheet (replacement-pages) in which the text has been drastically compacted. (A full answer would be more detailed; the thing to see is that both MSS' scribes show awareness of the absent verses.
For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. 1Co 15:3-4
I thought the end of the book would have been in the middle of the scroll when rolled up and therefore the most protected
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me very probable, that just like St. Peter, St. Mark gets arrested or sth like that, and Mark who is in prison or before getting arrested, charges one of his friends or followers, to end his Gospel, OR maybe sth happens to Mark, and St. Peter charges one of his followers, to end the work of St. Mark.... Any way, It seems to me as a reader, very unlikely that a book like this, is left very suddenly without any Ending or a co-called conclusion
Thanks for your comments. This is one of the theories supporting the longer ending of Mark's Gospel.
I don’t know much about this, but would think that it should end with vs 16 or the ending is lost. If it is lost, hopefully we will find it.
If it’s not original, 16:9-20 was part of the earliest texts we have, and well before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I’m not arguing either way. But Tatian has the entire section in his Diatessaron some 200+ years before S and V and well before Nicea. This doesn’t prove it’s original. But it does strongly indicate that for most of the life of what’s known as “Mark,” the longer ending was associated with it…
thank you that is interesting - do you know the videos I have here in a playlist 'Untold History of the Bible'?
I think the answer is very clear. Mark was written very early in Rome. It ended in 16:8 because the women were still alive and they took over after 16:8 with an oral testimony. Mark, like all the NT documents, was designed to be read outloud in the churches. It was read and had that cliff hanger at 16:8 and then the women at the tomb took over the narrative right after "gar" with direct eyewitness testimony to an enthralled and captivated Roman church audience. I think a lot of street performers of the ancient world probably employed a similar story telling technique (remember that the first gentile believers, especially in the major cities, were infact poor commoners). This was all forgotten because of Nero's intense persecution of the Roman church, unfortunately. But, I think this way of looking at it makes the most sense.
I find too many problems with the ending. For one: [9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week.... This would have Jesus in the tomb 3 days and 4 nights. Picking up snakes with there hands, drinking deadly poison? Speaking in new tongues?
I have heard someone present that Mark a likely non central witness was maybe recording a sermon of Peter. The main part of Mark is Mark's recording of Peter using Mark's language. The longer ending is an addition by someone else, for all we know Peter. If Mark was written in Rome, Matthew in Judea and John in Ephesus, then earliest churches in the East would more likely have easier and earlier access to Matthew and John. This coupled with the East having better weather for document preservation leads to the early papyrii favoring them over Mark. My other question is if we had a fragment that wasn't connected to the rest of Mark, would we realize it was Mark's ending?
These are helpful! Thanks for adding them to the conversation!
It’s funny because I’ve heard the opposite about if you have 15 people in a room and you have them all right the Gettysburg address it is more likely than anything that they are going to forget parts than add parts!,
"unintended ending" is a great phrase to say as a New Zealander hahaha
Great video as always. I personally do not believe the longer ending of Mark is inspired. Speaking to external evidences, the fact that other different endings existed lends itself to the conclusion that some scribes were trying to "fill in" what they believe was missing. I grant though that elements of the longer ending of Mark have early ancient attestation in some patristic writings, but its absence in Codex Siniaticus and Vaticanus carries a lot of weight. In addition, Eusebius and Jerome's reflection on the majority of manuscripts they had available to them lacked the longer ending. What does this mean in regards to God preserving His Word... did we lose God's words (from my position)? I would say No. God preserved His Words for us today through a rich manuscript tradition and so He preserved the Words that He wanted us to have. If one grants that there might have been a longer ending of Mark but that it was lost, or that Mark just didn't finish for whatever reason... well then that was ordained by God to end the Gospel of Mark where He did in verse 8. Up until Mark 16:8, nothing else about Mark's gospel is disputed. The Gospel was well received in the early church - in fact all (4) were. The fact that all the Gospels were recognized by the church to be from God very early on testifies to me that God preserved His Word (through the manuscript tradition) as He intended. We have exactly what God wanted us to have and He has blessed us with historical documents (both in the preservation of scripture and in writings of the early saints) that give us confidence that He did just that.
Why would you rely on two totally corrupted manuscripts in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which no sane person would trust??
Is he talking about Mark or Mock?
Well done. Concise and helpful.
Thanks John!
You should do a study on the book written by Nicholas Lunn in 2014, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9－20.
Thank you for this. Have you done Joh 8?
No, but that is a good idea!
@@bma I can't wait. I have you on notification, so when it comes out I'll see it. We are in day 48 of
the lockdown here in South Africa, so I'm binging on your videos, which has allowed me to catch up on the ones I missed out on.
@@TshoksOlam Wow! I think you're the first to binge watch this channel!
I agree. I think a video on John 8 would be great!
IT SEEM'S ME _ that there's nothing outlaw implicity at Mark Sixteen nine to Twenty indeed. On the another viewpoint being take into account Whether by Scholars, if they were able to believe in or by Coerence of insteady of by faith coming from Ordinaries People just ; Won't be fair for us to get wrong. At my opinion the Mark Chapter Sixteen eight ( nine to twenty ) long ending makes sence of accordingly to whole Bíblical picture.
No, it is not inspired. There is not smooth transition between v 9 and 8, plus v 9 reads like v 1 is starting all over again. The theology of drinking poison and handling snakes should be applied literally. I'm not convinced by exegetes who interpret it to mean otherwise. Those signs mentioned there should be following us because there is nothing to suggest they will cease, but I don't see them happening.
Thanks Tikvah!
I think it was likely added by Mark’s instruction and is therefore inspired. MikeinMinnesota
It wasn't added to mark until long after the writer of the gospel of mark would have died.
There is a fourth possibility for what happened to the ending. It is possible the Mark stopped writing at verse 8 for some reason, such as the ones you mentioned. Perhaps he was imprisoned and could not finish. But then he could have finished where he left off after some period of time, perhaps several years, and then he wrote the ending. In the meantime, copies of the unfinished document could have been distributed in his absence. After he finished the text, other copies were made either of the entire document or even just the ending, which were later distributed. This could account for the fact that there are these discrepancies. It could also account for the supposed stylistic/vocabulary differences between the ending and the rest of his text, as his style and vocabulary could have changed somewhat during the intervening time. I do not speak or write the same way I did 20 years ago. It would be reasonable that the same was true of Mark.
Furthermore, there are some very significant theological issues contained in the longer ending of Mark, which are very controversial in modern Christianity. It is very possible (I would argue that it is likely) that many, if not all, of the scholars who deny that the long ending is original or inspired are motivated more by theological bias than they would ever be honest enough to admit.
I appreciate your thoughts here. These are helpful. I'm not so sure I would agree that the reason for rejecting the longer ending is theological. Those who reject it include the types of scholars you would expect to hold to the kinds of theological positions you allude to. Thanks for your comments! Really helpful!
@@bma I'm glad I could be of help. As for the theological basis for opinions on the matter, I doubt that any scholar would admit that their theology influences their opinions on such a passage with such powerful and controversial theological implications. There are other textual variations that hold theological implications. I am sure that scholars' opinions on those passages are likely also influenced by their theology.
One of the problems I have had with the UBSGNT text (and presumably all other Greek texts) is the fact that only a small handful of scholars are basically making decisions on the text which all other Christians use and by which virtually all contemporary translations are made. There is no larger unified body of trans-denominational Christians who make the decisions. And in most cases, we get little or no detailed information on the reasoning behind the decisions made. I find it refreshing that the Tyndale publishers are planning on making available a detailed commentary on the various textual decisions they have made, in spite of the fact that the text was basically created by two individuals, though presumably with input from about a dozen others.
I agree, having the commentary by the Tyndale editors will be helpful. The more people understand these issues, the more they can be discussed and argued. This is part of the role of scholarly journals, but the church largely ignores these and they remain the realm of scholars for the most part.
@@bma I agree. I am so glad I found your channel. I appreciate what you are doing. Yeoman's work! I subscribed after watching one of your videos.
It's a good point. It's perhaps significant that though tolkien wrote all the Lord of the Rings the style fluctuates dramatically. The first few chapters are like the hobbit but then the style darkens rapidly. By the time we reach the third book tolkien is desperate to finish and events that would have taken a whole chapter are covered in only a few pages and the style becomes almost shakespearean.
Appreciate the presentation. I am one who thinks Mark ended it at v. 8, that the rest is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. I did a message that explained this to the congregation and it was used to bolster the trust we have in the work of legit textual critics who have a high view of the inspiration and preservation of the Scripture by God. It took me 50 years to conclude this; nonetheless, I'll not argue with godly believers who think it inspired.
Why do you call it the gospel of MAaak ?
The Gospel author does not identify himself directly. Tradition says that Mark wrote it. Maybe this is because God is happy to inspire more than 1 author within one piece of writing. The book of Proverbs has multiple authors. Just because someone other than Mark may have added verses 9 to 20 does not mean that God did not inspire that part.
Thanks Rowena!
Oooooh texts you're saying, lol I kept hearing ticks and was confused.
Sorry about that. I guess it is my accent… and perhaps speaking too fast? Thanks for watching!
We know Moses didn't finish the Torah. It's still inspired. Why does it have to be Mark himself that finished it to be inspired? I take an approach of cautious acceptance with 16:9-11.
Some would argue that Moses did finish the Torah, writing of his own death as the Lord revealed it to him. :) thanks for your thoughtful comment!
I believe verses 9-20 belong in chapter 16 of Mark. I believe it is inspired. I am not sure if Mark wrote it or had a scribe write it. I would point to the late Dr. Chuck Misslers teaching on these verses. It's supernatural!!
th-cam.com/video/z11It-Qt4G0/w-d-xo.html
The Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Jesus said to baptisé in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 and its by Immersion... After Repentance Believing and becoming Born Again.. God's Free Gift of His Grace
@@k-dogg9086 Then his own disciples disobeyed him. They baptized in the name of Jesus. That passage is no original to the Gospel of Matthew. Most scholars know this.
Mark did not write it….God did….do not question what you do not understand
Based on this video, combined with trusting God to handle His Scriptures, it sounds like Mark wrote the traditional ending.
The most reasonable theory given for how an original ending may have been lost, is the theory that it wore out because it's at the end of the scroll. The idea that any measures taken to preserve the ending were insufficient, is really just absurdly unlikely, and makes for the weaker theory. The idea that the account ends with the women saying nothing to anyone, is also rather absurd. Therefore, the most likely possibility is that some people find the ending to seem strange and they therefore impose their own bias and thereby reject it. However, we have the cross reference of Luke 10 v17-20 which clarifies that this is a way in which the Lord would speak of spiritual matters, giving no sufficient cause to reject the traditional ending.
QUOTE:
"And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding, in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."
Men are only regarded as scholars if they are institutionalized into the consensus of the modern academic institution, and if we consider the pitfalls of institutionalism, then we must consider the appeal to consensus/authority to be insufficient. I'm by no means saying that institutions have no great value, but instead I am saying that along with the great value of institutionalism there are also pitfalls.
It's obviously possible for a book to end with "gar", if indeed there is a complete sentence there. Regardless of whether we agree with the traditional ending or not, the word "gar" is the final word in that sentence, so the argument that the book cannot end with "gar" is simply invalid and not worthy of consideration.
I see the comments are full of ideas influenced by higher criticism, lower criticism, human rationalism, impericism and post-modernism, none of which can lead to truth and certainty. Before someone can answer the question that is being asked, one must start with a biblical epistemology. Until people, including the scholars, pastors, skeptics and teachers, are willing to start with a biblical epistemology this conversation will be nothing but a series of conjectures and refutations, always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Hhmmm....I tend to lean toward something happened in Mark’s life while he was trying to finish. At 16:8, perhaps, the Romans were coming by horseback (with their tin helmets on). Needless to say, the other gospels tell us the full story. And while we don’t have the full autographs, we have enough information to fill in the blanks.
Maybe we can compare this to a crime scene investigation. We only have half of a receipt from Target (the end of Mark) but we have the video from Target from that evening (the other gospels).
The gospels are supposedly inspired by God. Strange that he would allow Marks gospel to go unfinished, creating room for doubt.
@@cardcounter21 yeah that’s a good point. Or maybe that text got damaged. The original autographs are perfect but we don’t have those anymore. If one is struggling with doubt, God can handle that. We can ask God to reveal Himself to us and confirm the Scriptures for us. If it’s a spiritual thing then an intellectual argument is only going to go so far. It’s why the study of God is sometimes referred to as metaphysical. It’s beyond the physical.
@@jimburke7235 And did God _choose_ not to protect against damage or to preserve the perfect originals - therefore leaving an imperfect document as his legacy?
Ivan Panin did some interesting work looking at mathematical properties of the Greek New Testament which Dr Chuck Missler referred to in his teaching. Also, from the images I have seen of the codices in question, I think their reliability is questionable at best. All scripture is God breathed and I see the ending of Mark 16 as inspired also. Paul was bitten by a snake in Acts 27 yet he was unharmed. Just because the Scriptures don't record the other signs specifically happening to someone doesn't mean they didn't. Also, the text does not say that those specific signs will accompany every individual believer. Many presume Isaiah was referred to as the person sawn in two in Hebrews 11 but that event is not recorded in the Bible. Textual critics also say that there is more than one author of Isaiah. I don't believe that is true because of John 12:39, but even if there was more than one author, no serious Bible believing Christians would doubt the inspiration of the entire book of Isaiah.
Very balanced presentation!
Thanks Stephen!
The longer ending is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It’s foolish to cut it out, in the codex sianaticus there is sufficient space left to fit in those verses.
The 'oldest and best manuscripts' (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) were not the oldest and best when they were written in the 4th century and at that time they were not deemed the best (1) because they were not copied and (2) they differ greatly between themselves.
do you know the videos I have here in a playlist 'Untold History of the Bible'?
@@SAMBUT No.
@Rev Robert West these videos deal with these issues - the 4th and the 2nd video, maybe the most important ones
My friend what you can tell to Jesus about: Mt 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. and to Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,.. Also to: 2 Pet 1:21 For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. so according to you, all of this verse are wrong? look all of you are trying to proof that the Cat have 5 foot hiding your perverse doctrine of cessationism don’t you?... and because you do not believe clearly in the miracle today, prophecy and tongue are trying to cover with trash argument against the reality of this verse.... this old fashion argument that you are using mean nothing... look the Westminster, John Wycliffe, all the Puritans, even John Calvin, Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards accepted the veracity of the historical validation for this verse base in the Majority Text, preserved around the World... come on... man... what wrong with you....
Nothing after 16:8 is inspired in my opinion.
Problem with old manuscripts is that they are not maintained well after they are recopied. Whey? because there is now a new manuscript. In old manuscripts pages are lost and while new manuscripts are based on the last complete manuscript. Thus a newer manuscript that was preserved by an accredited school of scribes is always better than an older manuscript.
Why do so many "scholars" overlook the simple fact that if Mark ends at 16:8, there are no witnesses to Christ's resurrection, disqualifying Mark from being any "gospel" at all! .... Because according to Paul the gospel by which we are saved is; Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; He was buried and raised from the dead on the third day; He appeared to Peter and the twelve then to more than 500 brothers, then finally to Paul.....If Mark fails at the end to produce the resurrected Christ, then Mark fails to present the Gospel...And when the "young man", presumably an angel, says to the women that Jesus "has risen" but offers no proof, he leaves the women unconvinced because "they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.".......Imagine if Matthew, Luke, and John all ended this way! No actual proof of the risen Christ?...just some guy said he has risen? Who is this guy? Did he actually see Jesus risen? What proof does he have? And that is how Mark ends?
thanks, compelling point, and I found a lot of important insights just in these comments here - have also interesting videos in a playlist 'Untold History of the Bible' here on YT that bring further light into these issues, it's a fair amount of watch time, but if you start with video 4, then 2 (then 5 or 3 - last 1) ...
4:00 - the speaker is simply ignorant of Irenaeus' quotation of Mark 16:19 (c. 180) and Tatian's incorporation of Mark 16L9-20 in his Diatessaron (170s). LET THE STUDENT BEWARE. If you learn from the ignorant, you will be more ignorant.
You don’t have any authority to accept or reject any part. It is well known that St Mark taught beyond 16:8 even if Mark himself didn’t write it. First the Greek church Divine Liturgy incorporated it prior to the 381AD determination of biblical canon. Second the Latin church has accepted it and it possesses the full authority given to St Peter to determine issues as such. The claims made here hit the solid wall of prayer which determines faith, thus faith is to be placed in the longer ending.
Most scholars are fools and that is why they reject the longer ending. No one understands what they are actually reading anyway, they are just reading words.
The long ending is weird. I don’t really want to drink deadly poison in order to go to heaven…
No we shouldn't treat it as inspired Scripture, the original authors were inspired, not additions throughout the ages. If we treated as inspired we might as well throw out textual criticism altogether
Thanks Terry! Great reasoning!
Hello friend, it sadden's me you think the full ending is not inspired scripture. Look at the testimony of persons like Tyndale, and his NT (Tyndale Bible 1534) that had the long ending of Mark and was burned at the stake. Can I suggest that you buy a copy of his NT or at least view it online and give a bit of credit where it is due. Not to mention the Coverdale Bible 1535, Matthew Bible 1537, The Great Bible 1539, Geneva Bible 1560, Bishops Bible 1568, King James Bible 1611 etc which all had the full ending. In reference to throwing out textual criticism that would actually be a GOOD IDEA. As it was the Church that were guardians of the word NOT textual critics. God bless.
I hate 'textual Criticism.' that implies human science is more reliable than God's ability to complete his holy scriptures! lets just study it and analyze it just a little more to make it "more reliable"~What?!!
check the videos that I keep here in the playlist 'Untold History of the Bible', I would suggest starting with video 4, then 2 (then 5 or 3 - last 1) you will know why and how that is just one of the endless attacks on the Bible
When analysing, they don't consider theology.. even Conservative Christian scholar Dan Wallace says theology has no place in textual criticism.
Other theory: accidentally torn & recover
Why is it not asked or entertained whether Mark could have added an ending after the rest of his Gospel had already circulated? It was his account. It's understandable that he would have. And this would well explain how it clearly received full acceptance in its own day (not to be doubted for centuries, despite the clear evidence that it once may not have been included). John 21, for instance, is clearly an added ending by John. There are no manuscripts that don't contain it. But as far as most (non-manuscript) reasons for rejecting Mark 16 go, the same apply to the unquestionably Johannine last chapter of the 4th Gospel. Thanks! I enjoy the videos.
Thanks John! I think the main reason is the different vocabulary, style and theology of the passage. Also the argument that Eusebius indicates that the majority of manuscripts in his day lacked the ending is suggestive. Thanks for your comment!
100% Inspired by God!
this passage is so well attested that no one should doubt its originality ... and to believe that the ending was lost is to believe that a part of the canon is lost... no it's not lost, the Ending is preserved in almost all of the Greek MSS.... it should not even be doubted for a second, it is the ending found in almost all of the Greek witnesses, and the two Greek MSS which do not contain it, is not trustworthy at all... they are very poor MSS and two of the most corrupt MSS known to man... and there are one other MS, not a MS proper, but a commentary MS, which is missing the verses, that's all, one Greek commentary MS + two corrupted Greek uncials which disagree with each other thousands of times.... do not listen to modern scholars who are trying to discredit the vast majority of Greek MSS extant, the scholars are wrong, the MSS are right... thanks... :)
Can you support your assertions about the poor quality of the manuscripts that don’t include the longer ending? For your argument to stand you will need to. Scholars are not thoughtless men with an agenda. They operate out of a desire for truth just like you and I, complete with the same biases we have. They just try to argue and provide reasons to support their positions. We must all do the same.
If you're saved you believe the bible. My bible has the long ending of Mark. Do the math.
D., On the other hand,
th-cam.com/video/dsVJVD4FAXQ/w-d-xo.html (41 minutes) and
th-cam.com/video/zRs6hgKaaaI/w-d-xo.html (26 minutes).
0:55 - "a number"-- or, *six.* Why not just say "six"?
1:15 - you are aware that the one MS with the Freer Logion has verses 9-20, right? The Freer Logion appears between v. 14 and v. 15. So it's an interpolated form of the usual 12 verses, not something that circulated independent of vv. 9-20, right?
2:30 - "Most scholars" - yes, but are these people who have looked into the subject, or are they academic parrots who mindlessly absorb Metzger's Textual Commentary?
3:09 - It's spelled "Sinaiticus." And, no, its space is not sufficient to hold vv. 9-20.
3:28 - If Vaticanus and Sinaiticus /erroneously/ omit vv. 9-20, then their reliability should be called into question. So it's circular to argue from the premise of their reliability.
3:59 - Irenaeus specifically quotes Mark 16:19 in "Against Heresies," which significantly predates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus -- c. 180. Other evidence in favor of the inclusion of vv. 9-20 = Justin, Epistula Apostolorum, Tatian. All from the 100s.
4:20 - Jerome, in Ad Hedibia, was recycling Eusebius' Ad Marinum. And you're misrepresenting what Eusebius said in Ad Marinum. (See the composition Eusebius of Caesarea - Gospel Problems & Solutions.)
4:49 - Who is "Cyrian"??
4:50 - How much of the Gospel of Mark does Origen use? Is it unusual for Origen to not use a 12-verse segment of the Gospel of Mark? Have you bothered to establish and kind of baseline for what we should expect from Origen?
5:21 - Copyists are more likely to add than to delete? James Royse's research says otherwise. I recommend getting acquainted with it.
6:07 - What's your baseline, again? How many once-words words appear in a typical 12-verse segment of Mark? Is the amount of once-used words in vv. 9-20 higher than in any other 12-verse segments? Look and see. The answer is No.
6:57 - Theological objections? Really?
8:12 - Ending a speech (Protagoras) with gar is quite different from ending a narrative with gar.
Hey James, I'd love to know why you feel this is such an important subject? I've got lots of other videos on TH-cam but this is the one you keep commenting on. What is at stake for you in this discussion?
@@bma,
One fixes the fence where it is broken.
Ohhhh snapp! Great objections, somewhat snarkily presented! (I tend towards the Longer Ending, but also appreciate how graciously Darryl has responded to his critics.)
@@bma Hey, I'd love to know why you don't ensourage people to withdraw their false statements and replace them with true statements and STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE.
of course he did a gospel does not end with εφοβουντο γαρ
Yes, Mark wrote the ending of the gospel. The problem is that it embarrasses those who never see the signs following those that believe.
I doubt the contested ending of Mark for two reasons. #1 The Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus. #2 What is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? There is no such name.
Jesus (Son) Christ (Spirit) the Lord (Father). 3 in 1
Matthew 28: 18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.19 Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
@@k-dogg9086 Many scholars and history say that Matthew 28.19 is not part of Matthew's Gospel. The Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Don't care what scholars say. If we let them run wild weed have no Bible left