Certain Protestants and the Ending of Mark

  • Thread starter Thread starter whowantsumadebo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Metzger would be the one to quote of a good treatment of the ending of Mark. Also A. T. Robertson makes almost the same claim, another greek grammarian…one small quote…

Mark 16:8
So the facts are very complicated, but argue strongly against the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20. There is little in these verses that is not in Matt 28. It is difficult to believe that Mark ended his Gospel with Mark 16:8 unless he was interrupted. A leaf or column may have been torn off at the end of the papyrus roll.
(from Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament.
I have been aware of this controversy for some time, there are numerous verses in the bible which are not in many of the older manuscripts. These are usually denoted in some bibles (NASB) for instance with brackets and a footnote. Other translations will omit the verse entirely with just a footnote.
 
Hi,

Well it seems to me that most if not all the scholars feel the same about this. No one is sure about it one way or the other. So I guess it is a mute point.
 
ALLFORHIM said:
Hi,

Well it seems to me that most if not all the scholars feel the same about this. No one is sure about it one way or the other. So I guess it is a mute point.
Click to expand...
But this is the Holy Word of God!

We should take it seriously it is damnation or salvation. Not life and death, but more than that.

If it is misrepresented or added to, then we are attributing lies to God so it must be 100% correct. Unless we don’t really base our faith only off the Bible. I base my faith on Jesus, but I take God’s Holy Scripture seriously, all 73 books.

whowantsumadebo, it really boils down to says who. If your friend then says he has the authority to dismiss parts of Scripture then he must have authority directly from God. This means that everyone must agree with him or else they are not agreeing with God’s Authority.

In Christ
Scylla
 
My understanding is that the verses in question were in the original canon. If so then I think we must take it true. Since this would be the canon that God inspired to be bound together. If we believe that the Church was led by the Holy Spirit when it declared the texts of the Bible then I think we can rest easy that it is as they should be.

I might be looking at this in an over simplistic way but just because other texts were found with passages missing doesn’t mean that they are superior. What is important is that those texts were not inspired to be in the canon.

Of course if I’m incorrect on my knowledge of what made it into the canon originally then please let me know.
 
Nita said:
Here’s the footnote in my RSV Harper Study Bible (a Protestant bible):

"Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book by adding after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other authorities include the preceding passage and continue with verses 9-20. In most authorities verses 9-20 follow immediately after verse 8; a few authorities insert additional material after verse 14.

Does anyone know whether St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation (done in the 300’s) includes verses 9-20. Seems to me if they are in that translation it would be a strong case for their validity. St. Jerome had access to manuscripts older than we have today. The Vulgate itself may be older than any available Greek manuscripts.

Nita
Click to expand...
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary:

The longer ending, traditionally designated Mark 16:9-20, differs in vocabulary and style from the rest of the Gospel, is absent from the best and earliest at 16-8 (J. Hug, La finale de l’evangile de Marc (Mc 16, 9-20) [EBib; Paris, 1978]) Jerome Biblical Commentary stops at 8 but provides the information concerning 16:9-20.
 
The same people who make a big deal about “style” are the same people that believe in Q and don’t believe the gospels to be eye witness firsthand accounts

I don’t care for that kind of “style”!
 
Well I believe in Q to a certain extent, although I still believe in first hand witnesses, which Mark and Luke obviously weren’t for the most part. My friend does not believe in Q; he’s more of a “bible fell out of the sky” kinda guy. That’s why i’m surprised he denied this particular passage. Here I am defending a certain passage as authentic against a biblical literalist–weird!
 
whichever position you hold, I think one needs to explain why there are four or five different endings for mark. If Mark was interupted or the last page somehow destroyed. Then it makes sense that people would want to try to recreate or provide an ending to mark rather than leave Jesus in the grave at verse eight.
 
Would it be possible for Mark to be interrupted and the Holy Spirit to later inspire an ending?

Could the Holy Spirit work that way?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Would it be possible for Mark to be interrupted and the Holy Spirit to later inspire an ending?

Could the Holy Spirit work that way?
Click to expand...
I don’t see why not. After all, He is God, and He could inspire the Biblical authors in any way that He sees fit.
 
The Longer ending of Mark is one of the New Testament Deuterocanonicals. The Church declared it inspired and binding at the Council of Trent along with the Old Testament Deuterocanonicals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top