Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

[Luv1another]

Hey guys,
I recently read that some scholars believe that Mark 16:9-20 was added at a later date...I have looked around on the web but really don't see any clear answers and I am not one to read pages of debating or literature or whatever. I like to get right to the point and the proof which no one seems to do. It seems everyone likes to go on and on and on so I thought maybe someone here can tell me.
I was looking to see if there is like original jewish manuscripts or catholic manuscripts or something that could give a clear answer.
I saw that other verses in other books support the ending but then some disagree with that as well.
so if it is not the original ending is there any evidence of who may have added this ending?

thanks for any insight :)

[robrecht]

The manuscript evidence supports the idea that 16,9-20 is not authentic, the style is not really Markan, and the transition from verse 8 to 9 is awkward. There's also a shorter ending that is found in some manuscripts that is also considered inauthentic, and some manuscripts have both the longer and shorter endings. The two oldest manuscripts (which are not that old, BTW) are blank here, as are some early versions, while other mss have a space or scribal marks indicating some type of anomally. You still run across some scholars that think the original ending was lost, but the majority of critical scholars think that 16,8 was the original ending. A few people argue that the longer ending is authentic but they have not convinced many other scholars. I think most churches still consider it inspired and part of the canon even if it was not written by Mark.

[One Bad Pig]

What robrecht said (though I'll note that "not that old" is in relation to MSS for the other gospels).

[KingsGambit]

One thing I'm curious about: At what point did the longer ending become generally adopted?

[robrecht]

It was already known in the 2nd century so it is quite old.

[phat8594]

It was already known in the 2nd century so it is quite old.

Which is older than our earliest manuscripts for this text. At least that is my understanding.


Which of course is one of the big reasons this text is under such dispute....especially when we consider it is quoted by the ECF (so it at least seems that the EC thought of it as inspired / original)


So can we really know with certainty at this point? Eh...not really, although certain scholars have their reasons for believing either way.


Of course if I were a betting man, I'd bet to think John MacArthur has to think it is not part of the original..

[Cow Poke]

In my early preaching years, I came across this "revelation", and wasn't familiar at all with textual criticism. Quite honestly, at first, I thought this was "the beginning of the onslaught" of attacks against the authenticity of the Bible in whole, but checked it out with some of my professors. I was greatly relieved that men I respected greatly agreed this was most likely "tacked on", and the advice was "never build your whole theology on one passage of scripture -- ESPECIALLY that one".

[KingsGambit]

In my early preaching years, I came across this "revelation", and wasn't familiar at all with textual criticism. Quite honestly, at first, I thought this was "the beginning of the onslaught" of attacks against the authenticity of the Bible in whole, but checked it out with some of my professors. I was greatly relieved that men I respected greatly agreed this was most likely "tacked on", and the advice was "never build your whole theology on one passage of scripture -- ESPECIALLY that one".

Those poor snake handlers.

[Cow Poke]

Those poor snake handlers.

Yeah, well... if there had to be a passage that was "suspect", that's a good'n.

(but they're prolly all KJOnliests, eh?)

[phat8594]

Those poor snake handlers.

Don't forget about this one:




errr....wait!


But in all seriousness, I am still somewhat agnostic about this text simply because it was included in the ECF writings...which at least gives it some good credibility of being considered part of the canon.

That being said, textual variants really have never been much of a stumbling block to me. They are to be expected, IMO, when you get humans involved with the whole tansmission process.

And I definitely agree that we should not make a whole theology on one verse...as usually that means neglecting everything else while taking a verse out of context. The perfect example is the snake handlers....even if we are to consider this section legitimate, I hardly think the point of the passage is to tell Christians to pick up snakes just for the fun of it. Rather it is that miraculous signs will follow those who believe in the confirmation of the gospel.

[robrecht]

Which is older than our earliest manuscripts for this text. At least that is my understanding.

Which of course is one of the big reasons this text is under such dispute....especially when we consider it is quoted by the ECF (so it at least seems that the EC thought of it as inspired / original)

So can we really know with certainty at this point? Eh...not really, although certain scholars have their reasons for believing either way.

Of course if I were a betting man, I'd bet to think John MacArthur has to think it is not part of the original..

To the extent that one feels familar with the text, style, structure, and theology of Mark's gospel, that will be the level of confidence one has in making this judgment call. I've been reading the gospel of Mark in Greek for 35 years and, personally, I have no doubt, but it is a judgment call and no one is infallible. The overwhelmingly vast majority of critical scholars are agreed that 16,9-20 is not original so I do not think there is much dispute about this, apart from Textus Receptus zealots and KJV only-ists.

Who is John MacArthur, by the way?

[thewriteranon]

I hardly think the point of the passage is to tell Christians to pick up snakes just for the fun of it.

What??? -drops snakes- Aw maaaaan...

[One Bad Pig]

Who is John MacArthur, by the way?

He's a fairly well known Reformed pastor in conservative circles. He has published a study bible with his notes. He's on the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary, IIRC.

[robrecht]

He's a fairly well known Reformed pastor in conservative circles. He has published a study bible with his notes. He's on the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary, IIRC.

Thanks. I guess what I'm really wondering why phat 'would bet that he has to think it is not part of the original'?

[Cow Poke]

I think MacArthur is on board as it being a "variant"....

From a sermon by MacArthur on Mark 16:9-20