# Is Mark 16:15-18 supposed to be there?



## Jeremy (Oct 29, 2005)

Most of the newer versions of scripture leave the impression in the footnotes that the last part of Mark 16 may or may not have actually been part of the original gospel that Mark penned. But the KJV doesn't make any apology for it. 

What are your thoughts concerning this?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 29, 2005)

Keep it. There is nothing unorthodox in it. My opinion though.
(I like the apocrypha too, and prefer the LXX. so what do I know)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Keep it. There is nothing unorthodox in it. My opinion though.
> (I like the apocrypha too, and prefer the LXX. so what do I know)



Been drinking poison lately, have we?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 29, 2005)

> Been drinking poison lately, have we?



Didn't Christ and the apostles quote more from the LXX (which includes apocrypha) than the Masoretic ?

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 29, 2005)

> The original LXX was translated in about 250 B. C. While our fourth century manuscript does contain the Apocrypha, no one knows for sure when the Apocrypha was included. Some scholars believe that the Apocrypha was added to versions of the LXX after the time of Jesus and the apostles. It is important to realize that the Targums and Peshitta that preceded the LXX did not have the Apocrypha. It is true that the Italia, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Syriac "Bibles" did have the Apocrypha, but these works were "descendants" of the LXX and not the Hebrew text as such.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 29, 2005)

Jude quotes from Enoch 1 and the Assumption of Moses.

Blade


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > Been drinking poison lately, have we?
> ...



I was referring to what Mark 16 says we should be able to do, since you find it to be orthodox.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



I know, the horror:



> Mark 16:20 And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs



But of course, the Bible never uses figurative language, that is why I never prepare when getting into the pulpit, but simply let the Spirit take me away:



> Luke 12:11-12 Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. 12 For the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 29, 2005)

I have heard it said that this was a text referring to the early framework of the church as a validation of the gospel until the canon was closed. In Acts, many such things happened, like when the viper bit Paul and nothing happened to him.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 30, 2005)

At issue is not simply Mark 16:15-18 (although of course those verses are perhaps the most notable and in some cases controversial), but verses 9-20. I believe this passage and John 7:53-8:11 are the longest passages that the Critical Text brackets as not included in the original.


----------



## Steve Owen (Nov 8, 2005)

Mark 16:9-20 are in more than 900 manuscripts and missing in only a literal handful. Until someone writes a refutation of Burgon's _ The Last Twelve Verses of...... Mark_, I don't think we should abandon them. Burgon's painstaking scholarship is awesome!

With regard to the interpretation of v18, we need to note to whom our Lord was speaking (v14 ). We are not being encouraged to become snake-handlers! There also seems to be a reference to v20 in Heb 2:4.

Martin


[Edited on 11-8-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------

