Mark 16:18

[Gorgias]

"DavidFilmer:

The Gospel of Mark is also part of the Canon of Scripture. But that doesn’t include bits that were tacked onto the end centuries later.

The reason I don’t ever bother trying to explain or defend Mark 16:18 is because it is not part of the Gospel of Mark. It’s a gloss.

No. When the Church says that the Gospel of Mark is the inspired Word of God, She means the Gospel in its original form. This would not include content added centuries later.

Well, that’s an odd stance to take.

The Council of Trent’s “Decree on Canonical Scriptures” says:

It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.

They are the following:

… Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

… If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

Now, you might make the claim that the longer ending of Mark is not what Trent was referring to when it stipulates those parts “read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition.” However, even that would be a difficult position to hold – you see, this very same decree quoted Scripture right at the beginning of the decree:

The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, keeps this constantly in view, namely, that the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church after the errors have been removed.

This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct.

What’s interesting here is that the quote that I bolded shows up in only one place in Scripture: Mark 16:15. If the decree on canonical Scripture quotes Mark 16:15, and commands us to accepts the Scripture read by the Catholic Church… are you really going to make the assertion that they didn’t quote canonical Scripture there?

 

[DavidFilmer]

What’s interesting here is that the quote that I bolded shows up in only one place in Scripture: Mark 16:15. If the decree on canonical Scripture quotes Mark 16:15, and commands us to accepts the Scripture read by the Catholic Church… are you really going to make the assertion that they didn’t quote canonical Scripture there?

Councils quote LOTS of things that aren’t Scripture. They sometimes quote pagan philosophers!!!

You do realize, don’t you, that you are citing a CANON (you can tell because it has an anathema at the end). Canons are rules, not doctrines, and they change all the time. We’re currently under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and there ain’t nuttin in there that says anything that could be construed as imposing these extra verses.

 

[Gorgias]

Councils quote LOTS of things that aren’t Scripture.

Yes, but in this case – in a decree on Scripture – they’re quoting Jesus. From Scripture. :sad_yes:

You do realize, don’t you, that you are citing a CANON (you can tell because it has an anathema at the end). Canons are rules, not doctrines, and they change all the time.

Two thoughts: first of all, the ‘anathema’ only pertains to those who deny the canon of Scripture. The proclamation of the canon of Scripture still holds force.

Second, canons that are ‘changed’ are formally abrogated. Got anything that abrogates the decree on the canon of Scripture? Didn’t think so… :nope:

We’re currently under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and there ain’t nuttin in there that says anything that could be construed as imposing these extra verses.

Nor is there anything that says that the current CIC has changed the definition of Scripture. You’re on the wrong side of this one, David…

 

[JohnR77]

Greetings,

Personally, I believe that Trent has settled the matter that Mark 16:9-20 is canonical, but for those that don’t see it that way, let me go on to say, that even if I did not have Trent I would still be able to make a good case ( in my opinion) that the verses belong in the Bible.

I am short on time presently, but consider how Dennis Barton offers the best short simple explanation as to why the verses are different in style here. The Gospel was first orally preached by Peter and recorded by Mark.

The verses in question seem to be Peter’s response to questions that came at the end of his talk.

churchinhistory.org/s3-gospels/%28g299%29-reproduced-chap4.htm

defendingthebride.com/temp/newpic/Mark761.jpg

I know that Mr. Jimmy Akin and Patrick have offered “proofs” that this was not how it happened. Hopefully, I will be able to take some vacation time later in the year and explain how their conclusions are based (in my opinion) on very speculative assumptions, which I will argue, are simply false.

**The Gospels are Historical ** - By Dennis Barton - Free Pamphlet

God bless,
.

 

[steve_b]

Greetings,

Personally, I believe that Trent has settled the matter that Mark 16:9-20 is canonical, but for those that don’t see it that way, let me go on to say, that even if I did not have Trent I would still be able to make a good case ( in my opinion) that the verses belong in the Bible.

I am short on time presently, but consider how Dennis Barton offers the best short simple explanation as to why the verses are different in style here. The Gospel was first orally preached by Peter and recorded by Mark.

The verses in question seem to be Peter’s response to questions that came at the end of his talk.

churchinhistory.org/s3-gospels/%28g299%29-reproduced-chap4.htm

defendingthebride.com/temp/newpic/Mark761.jpg

I know that Mr. Jimmy Akin and Patrick have offered “proofs” that this was not how it happened. Hopefully, I will be able to take some vacation time later in the year and explain how their conclusions are based (in my opinion) on very speculative assumptions, which I will argue, are simply false.

The Gospels are Historical - By Dennis Barton - Free Pamphlet

God bless,
.

Just thinking outloud,

To add to your thoughts

If we take the “decree” of Pope Damasus I on the canon of scripture in 382 **+ **the bible that came from that canon, (Jerome’s “Vulgate”), and we see in the Vulgate, of Mark’s gospel, Ch 16: drbo.org/chapter/48016.htm represented by the Douay Rheims, which is a translation of the Vulgate, that those same verses are there in 382, from Mark, and neither the councils of Rome, Carthage, Hippo, Florence or Trent changed that, then the matter is closed, and we can feel comfortable with that.

As an aside, generally speaking

• at this late date, if anyone starts removing from the scriptures literally, or figuratively removing certain passages in their own mind, or doubting certain texts in scripture that they or some “scholar” won’t accept as valid, then watch out…nelly bar the doors. The whole authority of scripture is undercut.
• Footnotes in scripture describing certain passages #8 , don’t deny nor negate, those texts being inspired, ergo canonical, and scripture.

When the time comes, I hope you have a good and restorative vacation