Certain Protestants and the Ending of Mark

  • Thread starter Thread starter whowantsumadebo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whowantsumadebo

Guest
Aw Blast I mispelled ‘ending’!
Greetings,
This issue has bothered me for quite some time. While discussing the peculiarity of “snake-handlers” with an Evangelical peer, he made mention that Mark 16:9-on was an “addition” to the original text and that he didn’t consider it scripture.
Well as a student I’ve known about this Markan controversy for years, but was shocked to hear a bible-believer say this text was “weird” and not part of the Bible. Of course, I couldn’t say “well the Council of Trent declared it Scripture,” or “it’s been Holy Tradition” since the earliest days, since Evangelicals have no sense of history (joke). The best I could do was point to other passages in the New Testament that parallel Jesus’ great commision in Mark. Also I showed him John 8 which I said was “Holy Tradition” that needed a place somewhere in the Gospels. I don’t want to shake his belief in the Inerrency of Scripture; I don’t want to bring Catholic/Protestant issues into this conversation: I’m not even Catholic! I noticed this disregard of Mark’s ending in some Evangelical websites debating the neccessity of Baptism, as well.
So how do I approach someone who wants to throw out part of the Bible, seriously?
 
A well known evangelical Protestant named John MacArthur says in his commentary, “Since, in spite of all these considerations of the likely unreliability of this section, it is possible to be wrong on the issue, and thus, it is good to consider the meaning of this passage and leave it in the text, just as with John 7:53-8:11.”
 
What came first: the believes (the Church) or the written word of God (the Bible)?

Perhaps this is an example of the Church came first, then the Holy Bible!
 
whowantsumadebo said:
Aw Blast I mispelled ‘ending’!
Greetings,
This issue has bothered me for quite some time. While discussing the peculiarity of “snake-handlers” with an Evangelical peer, he made mention that Mark 16:9-on was an “addition” to the original text and that he didn’t consider it scripture.
Well as a student I’ve known about this Markan controversy for years, but was shocked to hear a bible-believer say this text was “weird” and not part of the Bible. Of course, I couldn’t say “well the Council of Trent declared it Scripture,” or “it’s been Holy Tradition” since the earliest days, since Evangelicals have no sense of history (joke). The best I could do was point to other passages in the New Testament that parallel Jesus’ great commision in Mark. Also I showed him John 8 which I said was “Holy Tradition” that needed a place somewhere in the Gospels. I don’t want to shake his belief in the Inerrency of Scripture; I don’t want to bring Catholic/Protestant issues into this conversation: I’m not even Catholic! I noticed this disregard of Mark’s ending in some Evangelical websites debating the neccessity of Baptism, as well.
So how do I approach someone who wants to throw out part of the Bible, seriously?
Click to expand...
This is a prime example of the error of Sola Scriptura, I have mentioned this to Protestants many times. In the end its up to the individual to decide what is Scripture and what isnt.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
This is a prime example of the error of Sola Scriptura, I have mentioned this to Protestants many times. In the end its up to the individual to decide what is Scripture and what isnt.
Click to expand...
and therein lies chaos
 
Hi,
I have never heard this before so I looked in my bible and it is in there. My study bible says-----Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark.They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain pecularities of vocabulary, style, and theological contentthat are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost.

Just my :twocents:
 
ALLFORHIM said:
Hi,
I have never heard this before so I looked in my bible and it is in there. My study bible says-----Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark.They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain pecularities of vocabulary, style, and theological contentthat are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost.

Just my :twocents:
Click to expand...
Do you just ignore that passage then? Ask the publisher to take it out? Do you consider the passage a part of Sacred Scripture? Does this stifle your confidence in God’s Word?
 
Dancelittleewok said:
Do you just ignore that passage then? Ask the publisher to take it out? Do you consider the passage a part of Sacred Scripture? Does this stifle your confidence in God’s Word?
Click to expand...
Hi,
I havent a clue because I have never come across this before. I will say it does not stifle my confidence in God’s Word at all.😃 My bible has it in their with a disclaimer right before the passages of my earlier statement saying that early manuscripts do not have this in there… At first glance the passages dont seem to contradict any of the other Gospels so I assume that is why they left them in. That is just a guess I really dont know.
 
ALLFORHIM said:
Hi,

What is the catholic church stance on this?
Click to expand...
The CC considers the ending of Mark to be Scripture.
It is very serious to recognize that an Authority like the Catholic Church in situations like this. You yourself saw first hand it isnt as easy as cracking open the Bible because the Bible doesnt define itself, in the case of Mark there are people saying its Scripture and people saying its not, if Scripture is really inspired by God then someone is seriously wrong.
 
So is that it: a 50/50 agree to disagree? I say it’s in the Bible and the Catholic Church says it’s in the Bible, but he says it’s not in the Bible. He’s not Catholic and doesn’t care what the Church says. Do I lose?
 
Research how the Bible was formed and it should be more clear what institution has authority to decide…
 
mtk76 said:
Research how the Bible was formed and it should be more clear what institution has authority to decide…
Click to expand...
But that’s taken me several years! How do I convince this guy here that Mark 16:9-20 is part of sacred Scirpture? I pointed out other passages like the Story of the Adultress in John 8. I said this was originally a ‘stray tradition’ that needed a place in the Gospels somewhere–the Bible couldn’t just have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Story of Adultress, Acts, Romans, Etc…
This seemed to shake him a little bit about the Authority of the Bible and hence also his faith in God–obviously not my intent.
I need an authoritative answer and not an authoritarian one like “cuz the Catholic Church says so.”
Someone please help or my brain will melt and ooze out my ears and nostrils onto the floor and i’ll be dead and my roommate will come home and barf and the cops’ll think he did it with a cosmic death ray and he’ll be put away for life or get the chair and it’ll cause a chain reaction which will unravel the threads of space and time and Armageddon will just have to start earlier than planned and the world will end and it’ll be ALL YOUR FAULT! Kidding there. Seriously though, help please.
 
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
 
Just did a google search on “Latin Vulgate Mark 16:9-20”. You’ll find a lot of info on this passage if you try that.

St. Jerome did include these verses in the Latin Vulgate even tho he personally held some doubts about their authenticity.
God has his ways of overseeing what gets included in Scripture 🙂 .

Nita
 
I quoted an Evangelical Protestant (John MacArthur), who is a Sola Scriptura believer, who says that it is possible that the longer ending may really belong in the Bible. Since we don’t know, and we could be wrong, it is best to leave it in. This to me shows that the Catholic Church really HAS gotten it right in terms of what should and shouldn’t be in the Bible.
 
““This seemed to shake him a little bit about the Authority of the Bible and hence also his faith in God–obviously not my intent.””

My NAB Catholic Study Bible (Oxford) includes both the longer ending and the shorter ending in parenthesis, along with some explanatory notes that indicate that Trent considered the longer ending to be inspired.

It seems to me that, in terms of your friend’s faith being shaken by this, or any other, biblical controversy, it would be important to emphasize to him that his faith shouldn’t depend on his understandings of scripture or long-standing controversies. If he has an abiding personal relationship with God, then he would best consider simply praying about this matter and leaving its resolution to a later date. I don’t see anything in either ending that shakes the faith. It is merely an interesting controversy that has obviously been around for many centuries, the matter of which we may never resolve. I do agree with what others here have said, that this type of thing is a strong argument against sola scriptura. But, if your friend is very young in the faith, then he may not be ready yet for such arguments. I would keep pointing him to the person of Jesus, and urging patience and prayer.
 
There are enough paralells with the ending of Mark that nothing is lost,

Parts of the longer ending seem to be based on various elements found in the other three Gospels, the Pauline epistles, and the book of Acts:

v.9a first appeared to Mary Magdalene (John 20:14);
v.9b from whom He had cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2);
v.10 she went and reported to the others (John 20:18);
v.11 they refused to believe it (Luke 24:10-11);
v.12-13a two returned and told the others (Luke 24:13-35);
v.13b they refused to believe it (Luke 24:11);
v.14 appeared to the Eleven (Luke 24:36-43, John 20:19-29, 1 Cor 15:5);
v.15 Great Commission (Matthew 28:19, Acts 1:8);
v.16 salvation and judgement (John 3:18, 3:36, Acts 2:38, 16:31-33);
v.17a cast out demons (Luke 10:17, Acts 5:16, 8:7, 16:18, 19:12);
v.17b speak with new tongues (Acts 2:4, 10:46, 19:6, 1 Cor 12:10…);
**v.18a pick up serpents (Luke 10:19, Acts 28:3-6); **
v.18b lay hands on the sick (Mark 5:23, Acts 6:6, 9:17, 28:8);
v.19a ascension of the Lord Jesus (Luke 9:51, 24:51, John 20:17, Acts 1:2, 1:9-11);
v19b sat down at the right hand of God, (Luke 22:69, Acts 7:55, Rom 8:34, Eph 1:20, Col 3:1);
v.20 confirmed the word by the signs that followed (Acts 14:3).

Evidence in favor of ending of Mark, Sixty-four Early Witnesses
curtisvillechristian.org/Evidence.html

The best evidence aganist the ending is manuscript evidence.
 
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.
Click to expand...
16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.
Click to expand...
(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Y 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): “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.” All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9-20.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
 
Allweather, that was persuasive and kindly. Daniel Marsh, thanks for the Church Father and Manuscript stuff. There we have the pathos and logos, I will do the ethos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top