# The ending of Mark and textual criticism



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 21, 2009)

What are your views of the ending of Mark? Do you consider inspired or an addition?

I personally am up in the air, but lean towards inspired. 

I believe that God sovereignly inspired the Scriptures and see no reason why He would not keep His hand on the Scriptures and protect them from becoming corrupt. If a majority of our texts have the ending, but a few older ones do not (which we did not find until recently) then why would we believe the older ones are correct?

Overall I am finding the overall concept of textual criticism very shaky. Everything is an argument from silence or on pure speculation. Maybe I haven't dug in enough and only have a partial understanding. 


Thoughts?


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 21, 2009)

Inspired. It's just too long for me to imagine someone would have made it up and stuck it in there. And I don't see anything inaccurate in it. Also, I could be wrong, but I think it was quoted by early church fathers.

Here's a poll on it: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/mark-16-9-20-scripture-51705/


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 21, 2009)

Rather than approaching the issue from a strictly text-critical position, which ends up pitting one thing against another, and one person against another,

better, in my opinion, to function in the church according to the same "sense" that God's people have always used--preChrist, postChrist, makes no difference--to discern the Voice of the Lord. Which is according to whether or not we hear the Spirit speaking by the Word to us.

We do not need the "Church" (capital C) to tell us what the Bible is, as helpful as her witness may be. Nor do we need the text-critics to tell us, despite the value (such as may be present, or not) of their contributions to the study of the textual materials extant.

YOU must answer the question, "Do I hear the Voice of my Savior speaking to me, by his Spirit's witness within me?" This puts all the other "authorities" in their place. They may indeed have legitimate authority, even over me, but it is subordinate to God's authority over us all, and that through his Word. His authority IN the WORD is immediate and direct.

I preached Mark's gospel in its entirety, including to v20, the place most text-inclusive Bibles leave off. (There is an even longer ending, which is seldom referred to outside of scholars corners). I did so because I think I discern the Master's Voice in those final verses. I may be wrong, but it is my task as a pastor to listen, and to teach from what I have been entrusted, according to my skill and my calling.

If someone has a problem "hearing" the Voice of Christ in Mk.16:9-20, then he has two choices. He can submit to the "hearing" that the majority has reckoned, and chalk up the problem to his own "reception". Or he can put the matter into suspense, and refuse to listen to it until he is convinced otherwise. Luther had to make this same choice when it came to the book of James. He did not leave it out of his Bible (as some have allleged) despite his questions, and later he seems to have reconciled with its inspiration.

Similar questions come up with the _pericope adulterae_, Jn.7:53-8:11. I think the witness is genuine, and preserved for us as Holy Writ, even if John's Gospel didn't contain it originally. If it is God's Word, might as well be "inserted" into one of the Gospels, rather than kept an appendix. I believe it is God's Word, not because it is "in" John and I already think "John's Gospel" is God's Word because it came from John. (Just so, if another "letter" from John were to appear, I would not consider it canonical for the same reason). No, but the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery "rings true" to me, as do the other Scriptures.


----------



## jambo (Nov 21, 2009)

I believe it is a late addition to the gospel as I see Mark 16 ending at v8. The contents of the verses in question are found in the other gospels with the exception of "signs" that will accompany the preaching of the word. "Signs" did acompany the apostles but they are not mentioned and the specific _picking up serpents and drinking poison_ does not seem to be found in the other gospels

What seems to be Marks version of the great commission is slighlty different in that one is to _preach the gospel_ to all creation which is a bit different to _making disciples_ of all nations. 

The options are:
1. Mark finishes at 16.8, but this seems quite an abrupt end.
2. 16.8 is followed by what appears as v9-20
3. 16.8 is followed by a single verse which the NASB translates as _"and they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclaimation of etrernal salvation._
4. Mk16.8 was not the end but was lost and 2 and/or 3 is an addition trying to provide a more satisfactory conlcusion.

I tend to view Mk 16 ends at v8 and the longer or shorter addition are additions seeking to tie up the loose ends around v8

The earliest, and what scholars would consider the most reliable mss, do not have the controversial ending but other early mss do which would sugggest the additions were added at quite an early date.

Having said all this is not just as simple in a few words to sum up what scholars have hotly debated and researched. Personally I would never preach on Mk 16.9-20 and secondly I would never build any doctrine on those verses. 

I recall as a young Christian meeting an old man who was a Charismatic who said to me he could drink poison and be OK and assured me that I could too. I just could not believe anyone could have been so irresponsible in saying such a thing to someone (who for all he knew) could have been quite gullible or unstable.

Whilst the likes of form ciriticism, source criticism and redaction criticism etc I would pay little or no attention to, I think textual criticism as something to bear in mind. For instance we have the famous Johannine comma of 1 Jn 5.8 which most would accept as a late addition from the time of the Christological controversies of the 4th century. I think properly used textual ciriticism is a help in getting as close to God's original words as posible.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Nov 21, 2009)

I've preached on the longer ending, so obviously I believe it's inspired and canonical. I deal with this issue in my (forthcoming) dissertation as well. I would recommend John Burgon's _The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark._


----------



## Jack K (Nov 21, 2009)

I'm not sure if this passage belongs. But I will say we ought not to blindly buy into the modern, "scholarly" assessment that an earlier manuscript is necessarily more reliable. Scholarship has a voice, but not the ultimate one. To preachers who believe the Spirit has preserved his Scriptures through the centuries, the NIV's blatant pronouncement that this passage is not found in the "most reliable" manuscripts is an unhelpful editorial comment.


----------



## jambo (Nov 21, 2009)

Jack K said:


> the NIV's blatant pronouncement that this passage is not found in the "most reliable" manuscripts is an unhelpful editorial comment.



The NIV translators are quite right about this. v9-20 are not found in the earliest most reliable manuscripts

I don't think textual criticism is anything to be afraid of. The statements in v9-20 are found in Matthew 28, Luke 24 and John 20. The disputed verses in the rest of the NT do not affect any major doctrinal issue. The orthodox belief in the Trinity, Christology, soteriology, scripture, man, sin the church etc is not in any way compromised or affected by textual criticism.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 21, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I believe that God sovereignly inspired the Scriptures and see no reason why He would not keep His hand on the Scriptures and protect them from becoming corrupt. If a majority of our texts have the ending, but a few older ones do not (which we did not find until recently) then why would we believe the older ones are correct? .... Thoughts?




I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of the 2? oldest mss. that is missing these verses is known to be incomplete i.e., a leaf of papyrus or whatever it was made of was clearly torn off. Anybody able to confirm or deny this?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 21, 2009)

I have found this gentleman's site to be very helpful. Here is some reference to this on his site. 

The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)



> Mark 16:9-20
> 
> Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. *The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost*, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. Below are some excerpts from various scholarly sources that conclude that the verses are a later addition.
> 
> ...


----------

