Mark 16:9-20 forgery?

[Abyssinia]

Is it true that Mark 16:9-20 is a forgery because the earliest versions of Mark didn’t include it. It was added on later by the church, and ended up being the basis for Pentecostal churches?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Is it true that Mark 16:9-20 is a forgery because the earliest versions of Mark didn’t include it. It was added on later by the church, and ended up being the basis for Pentecostal churches?

It was not a forgery, but an authentic part of Mark’s original Gospel.

One common theory of why some manuscripts don’t have it is that, for whatever reason, one copy didn’t have it likely due to the page being lost/damaged, and future copies made from that manuscript didn’t know this and simply copied what they saw.

 

[DavidFilmer]

All we know for sure is that these verses are not found in any very old manuscripts that have survived.

The Church assures us that the Gospel of Mark is inspired Scripture, but has not definitively said exactly what constitutes the Gospel of Mark. These verses occur in modern Catholic Bibles, with footnotes describing this uncertainty.

 

[ryanoneil]

My IGNATIOUS Catholic Study Bible says: The majority of Marcan manuscriptus include the longer ending, even though two fourth-century manuscipts end after verse 8 and others versions include a short ending of two sentences after verse 8.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Catholics do not determine inspiration based on how old a manuscript is, instead Tradition teaches what is inspired and what is not. This exposes an error at the heart of Protestantism, because without Tradition they cannot answer this question definitively, and instead must turn to the age of a manuscript to come to a conclusion - which even then isn’t conclusive.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Is it true that Mark 16:9-20 is a forgery because the earliest versions of Mark didn’t include it. It was added on later by the church, and ended up being the basis for Pentecostal churches?

The question ought to be, why on earth would the novel opinion of some men in recent times even make anybody seriously question what the Church has consistently believed to be inspired Scripture since the advent of Christ? The Church canonized the Bible in the 4th century. The sovereign guide of the theologian is AUTHORITY.

Even if we did not have any ancient manscript evidence (although we do), we could know what the Church has taught from the authoritative preaching of the Church. We have, for example, patristic evidence of that deposit of faith once and for all handed on to the Church (e.g. Jerome included the longer ending in his Latin Vulgate and again in his text Against the Pelagians 2:14-15).

There are over 1,500 Greek manuscripts which contain the Gospel of Mark. Two (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are undamaged and missing these passages, abruptly ending at 16:8. In other words, when leaving out damaged manuscripts, nearly all the manuscript evidence supports inclusion of Mark 16:9-20.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

There are over 1,500 Greek manuscripts which contain the Gospel of Mark. Two (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are undamaged and missing these passages, abruptly ending at 16:8. In other words, when leaving out damaged manuscripts, nearly all the manuscript evidence supports inclusion of Mark 16:9-20.

Are you saying ONLY two manuscripts lack 9-20?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Are you saying ONLY two manuscripts lack 9-20?

This depends upon whose doing the counting. According to J.E. Snapp, The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20:

It is sometimes said that only two out of 620 Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark are missing the last twelve verses [J. Burgon]. That estimate can be improved. Today the list of Greek MSS containing the Gospel of Mark is over 1,500. It is still essentially true that only two Greek manuscripts clearly display the abrupt ending of Mark at the end of 16:8.

Other manuscripts are appealed to for the shorter ending of Mark’s Gospel, however these are fragmentary and are missing several passages, so they do not provide good evidence for or against the ending for Mark’s Gospel. There are manuscripts for example, which lack verse 9-20, but also like verse 8. They do not contend, therefore, that verse 8 is a forgery. Instead, they conclude that the manuscript was likely damaged.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This depends upon whose doing the counting. According to J.E. Snapp, The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20:

Other manuscripts are appealed to for the shorter ending of Mark’s Gospel, however these are fragmentary and are missing several passages, so they do not provide good evidence for or against the ending for Mark’s Gospel. There are manuscripts for example, which lack verse 9-20, but also like verse 8. They do not contend, therefore, that verse 8 is a forgery. Instead, they conclude that the manuscript was likely damaged.

Wow! This totally changes my perspective to being even less impressed by the “shorter ending” crowd. I thought it was a mixed bag, since they often word things in such a way as to give the impression multiple manuscripts (clearly) lack this, rather than a few (literally).
A big thumbs-up to that!

 

[Zenas]

[T]owards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God,” confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool.”

Iranaeus. Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 10.

If Mark 16:9-20 was a forgery, why would Iranaeus have quoted Mark 16:19 toward the end of the Second Century. This was more than 200 years before the Alexandrian manuscripts which omit these verses from Mark. I believe Catholic Dude got it right that perhaps the end of Mark got lost or detached from one copy and other manuscripts were made from it, thus perpetuating the error. There can be little doubt that Mark wrote this. It is probably disliked by many today because of its dogmatic view of baptism, as well as the reference to handling snakes. As for the latter, see Acts 28:3-6.