Mark 16:9-20 not valid part of Bible?

[Wileyzmuse]

There is a notation in my NIV Bible that says the following in parenthesis above Mark 16:9-20

"The earlier manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

It mentions handling poisonous snakes without danger, drinking deadly poison without it hurting them at all.

Your thoughts & wisdom?

YSIC,
Patricia

[Proudmommy]

They way I've read it, is that these 'manuscripts' are not nice little neat bound 'manuscripts. What they do is compare all these peices of manuscripts that they'd found to see if what they had stood up to what they had in the 'manuscripts'. It may be that the earliest manuscripts didn't have that verse because it had degraded around that point. They probably had enough cooberating evidence from later manuscripts to believe that the verse in question was most likely in the older manuscripts.

Hope that helps.

[pilgrimian]

There are actually some four endings to Mark (not to sound weird...but I've never particularly cared for reading this Gospel anyhow...I prefer the other three)...but that's beside the point.

Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 269-270.

Already in the second century ... the so-called long ending of Mark was known to Justin Martyr and to Tatian, who incorporated it into his Diatesseron. There seems to be no 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.

The Ending of Mark (http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html)

Either way, this doesn't cause me to lose any faith. Verse 18 has always intrigued me...

18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

I can't remember where the passage is...in Psalms, I think...but it talks about God protecting us...and yet not doing so in each and every individual case. Drinking deadly poison sort of ranks up there with one of those issues one would want to think twice about doing.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[Wileyzmuse]

Thanks Proudmommy & Matthew :)

I know that several verses in 16:9-20 are corroborated elsewhere in the Bible...it was definitely the snake-handling and poison immunity that got me going. Wasn't it Paul that got bit by a snake and it didn't do anything to him?

YSIC,
Patricia

[Proudmommy]

Yes. I don't see that verse as giving us permission to risk our lives stupidly. I see it more as, some christians may be forced to handle poisonous snakes or drink poison and they won't be harmed. Kind of like when 'Rack, Shack, and Benny' were thrown into the fiery furnace, or when Daniel was thrown into the lions den. God protected them from what should have been certain death. (Their real names are very tricky, they were with Daniel.)

[Hootmon]

Kind of like when 'Rack, Shack, and Benny' were thrown into the fiery furnace Bwahaha :rofl

My daughter will get a kick out of that. :lol

[Proudmommy]

Hey, it is easier than trying to remember those other names!:b :lol

[filosofer]

There are really multiple endings to Mark:

1. No ending

Manuscripts: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, 304 syriac(a), Coptic (sahidic), armenian (~100 mss), georgian (two traditions),Clement, Origen, Eusebius. And Eusebius and Jerome both note that most Greek manuscripts did not include an ending - even the numbering scheme used in the Eusebian writings make no numeric provision for anything beyond 16:8.

2. Shorter ending of two verses (sometimes given in footnotes),
"But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

Manuscripts: L, Psi, 099, 0112, it(k), syriac(Harclean margin), 274(margin), 579, lectionary (1602), coptic (several Sahidic mss, several Coptic mss), several ethiopic mss.

Note: all of these except it(k) also then include the longer ending below.

3. Longer ending (vs. 9-20)

Manuscripts: A, C, D, K, Chi, Delta, Theta, Pi, f(13), 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1230, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174, many Byzantine mss, lectionaries (60, 69, 70, 185, 1761), it (Aureus, Colbertinus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Corbeiensis II, Rehdigeranus, Sangellensis [5th cent and 7th cent], q[13] Monacensis), vulgate (Clementine and Wordsworth-White), syriac (Curetonian, Pe****ta, Harclean, Palestinian), coptic (Sahidic, Boharic, Fayyumic), gothic, armeinian (several mss), ethiopic (several mss), georgian (Blake), Diatesseron (a, i, n), Irenaeus (Greek, Latin), Tertullian, Aphraates, Apostolic Constitutions, Didymus

4. Longer ending (vs. 9-20) plus addition in vs. 14
"And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore, reveal your righteousness.' — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ answered them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inheirt the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' "

Manuscripts: W, (and attested to its presence by Jerome)

So, how to address these issues? I will only comment briefly now by adding what two commentators have provided as an assessment of this evidence. The style is definitely not Markan. Henry Barclay Swete. [Commentary on Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes, 1913] notes that Mark 16:9-20 showed evidence that the longer ending is part of a self-contained unit that was assimilated sometime in the late 2nd century to Mark's Gospel. Also, interesting because Swete asserts that the style of the longer ending (vs. 9-20) is Johannine in style rather than Markan.

William L. Lane [The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, 1974] provides a terse summary of issues regarding the shorter and longer endings of Mark, claiming that evidence indicates that the shorter ending was probably written prior to the longer one. Vocabulary of the longer ending is marked by 17 non-Markan words (p. 604, fn 10). Lane also notes that "Mark's usual transitions, EUQUS, PALIN are absent from verses 9-20; the use of KAI is rare and no phrase begins with parataxis."

[Warrior Prophet]

Wow Filo,
Thanks for the explaination. It would be great if you could PM me or e-mail me some stuff on the greek and hebrew manuscripts and some suggested study stuff. It really interests me.

In His Service,
Mark Murphy

[Jeffer]

Wileyzmuse, It's in the Authorized King James Version.

Mark 16
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

[Wileyzmuse]

Jeffer - why thank you! Well if the "Authorized" king james version has it, then it must be ok. ;)

How is the Authorized version of kjv different from the plain ole kjv?

[Warrior Prophet]

I believe they are one in the same Wiley. You can either call it the KJV or the AV (Authorized Version). It should be noted that their have been many 'tweaks' to the original 1611 KJV. Not in content, but in spelling and grammar. Ultimately, it goes down to what manuscripts you put your faith in.

In His Service,
Mark Murphy

[Jeffer]

What is wrong with holding up the KJV and telling Bible-believing Christians, "You can trust every word"?

[Nimrod]

OK you Bible nuts.

Please explain what is meant by the term "secret Mark". Possibly a belief in a different or unaccepted manuscript?

Peace

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by Jeffer
What is wrong with holding up the KJV and telling Bible-believing Christians, "You can trust every word"?

By the way, Wiley...it never was actually "authorized" as Queen Elizabeth had done with the Bishop's Bible and The Great Bible (which are among the many translations which preceded this one that so many people venerate).

"If it ain't broke...don't fix it?"

Let's see what the translators said:

"It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it does not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be miscontrued, and in danger to be condemned."

There are a couple problems with the KJV, just like with other translations. That's why it's wise to read a number of translations, Jeffer. The KJV Translators believed the same thing:

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

And, as they were discussing possible differences in translation, the KJV Translators also said this:

"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

I'm not saying you, or others, ought not read the KJV....but it would be wise to know the other translations. By your sig you appear to have a vendetta against other translations, which I find to be too bad. The NASB, ASV, 1901 and NKJV are all wonderful translations. The New Living Translation is even good in many respects.

For in-depth anyalysis I would direct you here:

The King James Only Resource Center (http://www.kjvonly.org/)

God's blessing in our glorious Savior,
Your brother in Messiah,
Matthew

[Jeffer]

The following, by Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, might help you better understand where I am coming from:

The men on the translation committee of the King James Bible were, without dispute, the most learned men of their day and vastly qualified for the job which they undertook. They were overall both academically qualified by their cumulative knowledge and spiritually qualified by their exemplary lives.

Among their company were men who, academically, took a month's vacation and used the time to learn and master an entirely foreign language; wrote a Persian dictionary; invented a specialized mathematical ruler, one was an architect; mastered oriental languages; publicly debated in Greek; tutored Queen Elizabeth in Greek and mathematics; and of one it was said, "Hebrew he had at his fingers end". Yet head knowledge can be a curse if not tempered by a fervent, pious heart.
In this, the spiritual realm, they were light years ahead of many today who flaunt their education yet fail in any attempt at a practical, personal witness.
This company was blessed with men known for their zeal and tact in debating and converting Romanists to Christ. They spent hours in private and family devotions. Many did the work of evangelism and even that of missionary representatives of later Queen Elizabeth. One, lived to the age of one hundred and three years. In the closing years of his life, after preaching for two full hours he said to his congregation, "I will no longer trespass on your patience" to which the entire congregation cried out with one consent, "For God's sake go on". He then continued his exposition of the Word of God at length.

Yet humanity was a universal trait shared among them as is so amply revealed in the Epistle Dedicatory. "So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil;" Yet, in spite of their outstanding character, they never claimed divine inspiration. (A claim which, if they had made, would over joy their detractors as evidence of a prideful spirit.) They never even claimed perfection for their finished work.

Does this mean that, because they did not claim God's hand in translating the Scripture that He could not be or was not in control of their commission? For the answer we must look to the Bible, our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

When John the Baptist was accosted by the Levites in John chapter one and asked if he was Elijah (John 1:21) he answered that he was not Elijah. Yet in Matthew chapters 11:7-14 and 17:10-13 Jesus Christ plainly stated that John was Elijah.

Did John the Baptist lie? No. Did Jesus Christ lie? Of course not. The answer is very simply that John was Elijah but he didn't know it! Thus we see from our Bible example that a man can have God working through him and not know it. Likewise, God could easily have divinely directed the King James translators without their active knowledge.

[pilgrimian]

Thanks, Jeffer...

I've read Gipp before...and Waite........and Hills....and Riplinger....and Ruckman...and all those folks. And the more I read them the happier I am with the NASB, ASV, NKJV, RSV, and NLT.

Not only that, but I am afraid that I strongly disagree with Dr. Gipp's thinking that John was Elijah. He would have played that role, undoubtedly, if Israel had accepted the Kingdom offered to them by Messiah.

Matthew 11:

14 "And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.

This verse helps to explain it even better:

Luke 1:

17 "It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

John 1:

21 They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No."

Christ says in Matthew 17 (in the future tense--and coming after Matthew 12 where the Kingdom offer is rescinded because of the denial of Christ's Messiahship) that Elijah will come to restore all things (a strong allusion to Malachi 4:6). But this is a promise that is tied to the second coming...because Israel didn't accept Christ. The disciples' confusion was in the fact that they didn't understand Christ's two-fold coming.

If Israel would have accepted the message, then John would have accomplished the function of Elijah (or "Elias" if you like). Therefore, Elijah will come at some point prior to Christ's second coming. Dr. Gipp's eschatology could use some tweaking.

Godspeed,
Your brother in Messiah,
Matthew

P.S. Here is a photo gallery of the KJV's 1611 edition, with margin notes...many of the margin notes correspond directly to the NASB.

KJV, 1611 Photo Gallery (http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof)

Jeffer, this is certainly a subject for a different thread...but you might consider these:

Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not?

Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the "word of God"? Why or why not?

Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not?

Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God.)

Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambridge, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?

In the context of Matt 5:18, define "jot", "tittle", and "law".

Define "circular argument" and give an example.

When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?

Suppose you lived in the 10th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position?

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE BIG QUESTION:
The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority" in 1610 and prior? Explain.

[tjohn]

Nimrod -

Yes, Secret Mark is fragment of a manuscript that was found in 1958. Its authenticity is widely debated by scholars (although its an easy call for Christians who accept the Bible). It was found with a letter from Clement of Alexandria who lived in the 2nd century. The letter basically claimed that Mark wrote the gospel we have, then also wrote a secret version for the spiritually elite. The secret version was to be kept from regular folk because they couldn't handle it. The letter claimed a heretical group already had gotten hold of it, and was twisting it around.
As I said, scholars go back and forth on its validity, I just call it heresy and keep on moving...

Tjohn

[pilgrimian]

Very interesting. The only thing I could find which was of much interest to me was a bit from Norman Geisler on Ankerberg's site, as he commented on the Jesus Seminar:

The group has used colored beads to vote on the accuracy of Jesus’ sayings. A red bead means words that Jesus probably spoke. Pink indicates words that could probably be attributed to Jesus. Gray represents words probably, though not certainly, came from later sources. Black indicates words that Jesus almost certainly did not speak.

The vote was based on a variety of Christian writings other than the four canonical Gospels, including the fragmentary Gospel of Peter, the supposed but not extant Q or Quelle ("source") document, the second-century Gospel of Thomas, and the non-extant Secret Mark. Thomas is usually treated as a fifth Gospel, on a par with the four canonical books.

Secret Mark & The Jesus Seminar (http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/theological-dictionary/TD0900W2.htm)

Here's an interesting article:

The Strange Case of Secret Mark (http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Secret/secmark-engl.html)

I'll take Scripture as it is, though. Though I disagree with KJV-Onlyism, I'm not about to add to the canon of Scripture! Even if that third letter to the Corinthians was to show up some day...I don't think it's Scripture.

Godspeed,
Your brother in Messiah,
Matthew

[filosofer]

Originally posted by Jeffer
The following, by Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, might help you better understand where I am coming from:

The men on the translation committee of the King James Bible were, without dispute, the most learned men of their day and vastly qualified for the job which they undertook. They were overall both academically qualified by their cumulative knowledge and spiritually qualified by their exemplary lives.

Among their company were men who, academically, took a month's vacation and used the time to learn and master an entirely foreign language; wrote a Persian dictionary; invented a specialized mathematical ruler, one was an architect; mastered oriental languages; publicly debated in Greek; tutored Queen Elizabeth in Greek and mathematics; and of one it was said, "Hebrew he had at his fingers end".
Perhaps a little reflection on what Dr. Gipp has written. No one masters a foreign language in a month - even geniuses who have photographic memory do not master languages in that amount of time. And consider that learning any language at least 1500 years removed adds to the complexity.

As far as debating in Greek, that was standard practice among the educated throughout Europe. Latin and Greek were both languages of debate. So making that claim is just acknowledging that they were in an academic environment in the 17th century.


Yet head knowledge can be a curse if not tempered by a fervent, pious heart.
In this, the spiritual realm, they were light years ahead of many today who flaunt their education yet fail in any attempt at a practical, personal witness.
This company was blessed with men known for their zeal and tact in debating and converting Romanists to Christ. They spent hours in private and family devotions. Many did the work of evangelism and even that of missionary representatives of later Queen Elizabeth.


I would agree with this assessment, that academic ("head knowledge") is to be tempered with and molded by the spiritual life. Dr. Gipp makes it appear as if there is something special about the KJV translators' spiritual devotional and missionary zeal. I have met several translators on various translations, corresponded with many translators in many languages, and had the privilege of meeting the head of the American Bible Society, and working with many Greek and Hebrew scholars. And in every case the devotional and missionary zeal of EVERYONE of them was exemplary of Christian devotion and dedication.

So, my point is not to degrade the translators of the KJV - rather to point out that their qualifications, academically and spiritually, put them in the same category as the translators of many of the modern translation teams. And for that we rejoice.

[filosofer]

Originally posted by Warrior Prophet
Wow Filo,
Thanks for the explaination. It would be great if you could PM me or e-mail me some stuff on the greek and hebrew manuscripts and some suggested study stuff. It really interests me.

In His Service,
Mark Murphy

Mark,

For beginning textual criticism, use the critical apparatus found at the bottom of the Nestle-Aland (27th ed. is the latest) for the Greek NT. More footnoted detail is given in NA, but if you want extended footnotes for fewer texts, then the critical apparatus of the UBS (4th ed. is the latest) is better. And use the following with the UBS text.

Textual Commentary of the NT by Metzger, et al, which explains the ranking system used for textual variants in the UBS text. For instance, it details some of the information on Mark 16:9-20.

Probably a starting point is to read two books for general introduction:

The Text of the New Testament Bruce Metzger

The Text of the Old Testament by Ernest Wurthwein

These offer insight to the major texts, with descriptions,d ates, etc. As always read carefully, because occasionally there may be an error about a specific manuscript. Metzger is good because he also discusses the issues of textual criticism.

More recently, consider Rethinking NT Textual Criticism edited by David Alan Black. This book presents an introduction to the current issues and the three major views on textual criticism (reasoned eclecticism, thorough-going eclecticism, and Byzantine priority). Of course, another movement is the Majority Text (MT) movement, but is not covered in this book.

Textual criticism of the OT requires more study and usually is harder to follow, only because people are not used to working with Hebrew, nor with the textual apparatus in BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia the standard Hebrew printed edition today).

There are many others, but this should hold you for a couple of weeks. :D

[Bluwingolive]

I've found no evidence that the addition to Mark wore away from previous scrolls. That being said - I rather like the idea of Mark simply ending with the empty tomb. I'm continually troubled by redactionist work on the Bible. For these interested, a really good read is Bart Ehrman's (Chapel Hill) "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" - a little thick at times but good stuff.