# What about Mark 16:9-20 ?



## sotzo (May 5, 2007)

Perhaps there is already a robust thread on this...if so, feel free to point me to it rather than begin another thread.

1. When did this passage inserted into printed editions of the Bible? Or has it always been there and scholars realized it was not in the earliest/most reliable manuscripts?

2. More importantly, how does the situation with this passage relate to how we know what is Holy Scripture (the canon) and what is not? In this case, it seems a bit different because the book of Mark is in the canon...in other words it is not like I and II Macabees which is all apocryphal.


----------



## reformedman (May 5, 2007)

A little something on the subject
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html


----------



## satz (May 5, 2007)

I will confess to being skeptical of a tradition that makes Christians doubt whether they can trust the words of their own bibles. regardless of where a Christian person or church comes down in regards to this passage, in all likelihood they have got there not by trusting the bible, but some external source, no matter how scholarly. 

The bible tells us that if we have the scriptures, we can even hold the Apostle Paul accountable as to what he teaches (Acts 17:10-12). However under the paradigm where we have scholars and historians telling us what is and is not part of the bible, Christians have no way of checking these men out against the word of God. 

At the risk of sounding immature and amateurish, if we wonder about the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, instead of running to scholars and old manuscripts, why not compare spiritual things to spiritual (1 Cor 2:13) and see that; the various appearances he makes whether to Mary Magdalene, two disciples or the eleven are all substantiated in other gospels, the great commission is seen in another gospel, the apostles did indeed perform many wonderful signs in Jesus’ name, be it casting out devils or speaking in tongues, they did indeed lay hands on the sick and heal them, and they did indeed take up serpents (Acts 28:3) without suffering harm.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (May 7, 2007)

Mark 16:9-20 is authentic.

It was cited by a late 1st cent. church father.

All of the manuscripts that omit it are primarily alexandrian in text type.... but it appears just fine in the other text types, though they are younger in age than the alexandrian ones.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 7, 2007)

Joel B.,

It was also discussed on a recent thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=20445

Go a few posts into it.

Steve


----------



## Herald (May 7, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Mark 16:9-20 is authentic.
> 
> It was cited by a late 1st cent. church father.
> 
> All of the manuscripts that omit it are primarily alexandrian in text type.... but it appears just fine in the other text types, though they are younger in age than the alexandrian ones.



Okay..the critical vs. TR debate. With everthing I've seen on this topic that is all it ever comes down to. I suppose you have to pick your side. But even if you're a critical text guy the passage does not inject error into the narrative.


----------

