Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

[JamesSnappJr]

Focus Please?

Robrecht and One Bad Pig and 37818,

Fascinating as these new questions about the essence of canonicity may be, several questions were already pending. Perhaps a new thread about what makes a text canonical would be a beautiful thing; meanwhile, in this discussion about Mark 16:9-20, I hope we can stay focused on the external evidence for a while, and then move along to internal evidence, and perhaps afterward we can return to the subject of canonicity. Though I would think that the presence of at least part of verses 9-20 in all but two undamaged Greek manuscripts of Mark 16, all Syriac copies of Mark 16 except one (the Sinaitic Syriac), and all Latin copies except one (Codex Bobbiensis, which has an anomalous text of Mark 16 pretty much all the way through) would constitute de facto canonical status for any variant-reading.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[hedrick]

Canonicity is a pretty slippery concept, I think. Ultimately it’s a community judgement. It’s not random. It’s based on what we know of the text. But it’s different than simply a scholarly judgement.

There are many phrases and some verses that critical scholars don’t think were in the original. Largely they are not included in translations, and not read from the pulpit, except in groups that reject the scholarship. For this reason I would not consider them canonical. Most appear to have been added several to many centuries after the original documents. Often they’re just mistakes in copying, sometimes maybe clarifications. But they’re not the sort of thing there would be any reason to preserve as canon.

But there are a few exceptions. The best is probably the story of the woman taken in adultery. It was surely not part of John in the original. It first appears there centuries later. Yet the Church is reluctant to give it up, even those accepting the scholarship. I agree with this judgement. From what we know about the early Church, it’s very unlikely that anyone would have made this up. It is possible, maybe probable, that this is a story going back as far as the canonical gospels, but transmitted separately. But ultimately it’s a judgement of the Church. Is it in lectionaries? Do people preach on it? I believe the answer is yes. It’s in the revised common lectionary, which my Church (PCUSA) uses, and I believe people preach on it.

How about the longer ending of Mark? I very much doubt it was written by Mark. Metzger thinks it was taken from another document, likely written in the early 2nd Cent. There’s nothing out of keeping with the Gospels in it (as long as you don’t misuse it, as some have done). So it's fairly early, though probably not as early as Mark. I don’t see any reason that the Church couldn’t regard it as canonical. It is in our lectionary. But I don’t know how commonly people preach on it. If I were going to do a sermon on the post-resurrection experiences, I’d pick a passage from one of the other Gospels. Unlike the woman taken in adultery, it doesn’t seem to have much unique to contribute. Personally I’d consider it questionable.

[KingsGambit]

This was an excellent post, hedrick, and helped sort out some of the issues I was working through but couldn't find a way to articulate.

I tend to think the ending to Mark doesn't have to be as theologically controversial as some make it, but this is only if you're not resorting to the proof-texting manner of exegesis like some people do with, say, the snake-handling passage whose application is ripped out of context. Some people don't like it because of the mention of baptism in Mark 16:16 but I suspect they would not have liked how the early church saw baptism.

[hedrick]

Some people don't like it because of the mention of baptism in Mark 16:16 but I suspect they would not have liked how the early church saw baptism.

We're kinda stuck with rom 6:3-4 anyway. The longer ending has certainly been the source of weirdness, but the kind of use of language that we see in poison and snakes is there throughout the Bible. There's no way to avoid the need for sensible exegesis. I once had a Sunday school student with Asperger's that I couldn't convince mat 5:29 was meant non-literally.

[robrecht]

This was an excellent post, hedrick, and helped sort out some of the issues I was working through but couldn't find a way to articulate.

I tend to think the ending to Mark doesn't have to be as theologically controversial as some make it, but this is only if you're not resorting to the proof-texting manner of exegesis like some people do with, say, the snake-handling passage whose application is ripped out of context. Some people don't like it because of the mention of baptism in Mark 16:16 but I suspect they would not have liked how the early church saw baptism.

Yes, hedrick has good posts. By the way, what is it that people do not like about baptism? Is that it seems to contradict sola fide? Or something else?

[robrecht]

We're kinda stuck with rom 6:3-4 anyway. ...

Why do you say we're stuck with Romans 6,3-4? Is there something wrong with Paul's statement here?

[KingsGambit]

Yes, hedrick has good posts. By the way, what is it that people do not like about baptism? Is that it seems to contradict sola fide? Or something else?

I think that's most of it. Some people might also be concerned about exceptional cases (i.e. where somebody drops dead on the way to their baptism), but I don't think God sees it as mechanicalistically as critics envision.

[37818]

Some people don't like it because of the mention of baptism in Mark 16:16 but I suspect they would not have liked how the early church saw baptism.

We're kinda stuck with rom 6:3-4 anyway. The longer ending has certainly been the source of weirdness, but the kind of use of language that we see in poison and snakes is there throughout the Bible. There's no way to avoid the need for sensible exegesis. I once had a Sunday school student with Asperger's that I couldn't convince mat 5:29 was meant non-literally.

While it is true all interpreters do not agree. The promise of salvation in believing and being baptized is valid. Just that baptism is not the requirement, believing is. Baptism accompanies the gospel, it is not the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17). As far as Romans 6:3-4, the immersion is the believers burial with Christ, not unlike the Israelites passing through the mist of the water to Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2). The point of Jesus teaching (Matthew 5:29) is the Hell fire is that serious of a thing under the Law. Mind you that is under the Law, not under grace. And then literally doing that would not be enough under the Law (James 2:10). That is my take on this.