The Ending of Mark: Mark 16:9-20

[Achilles6129]

OK, so does the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) belong in Scripture or not? Is it divinely inspired, or isn’t it? I understand that nowadays most scholars believe that it was not authentically written by Mark: does that mean it’s not divinely inspired?

Here’s an interesting article:

bible.org/article/irony-end-textual-and-literary-analysis-mark-168

If anyone else has any interesting resources, please let me know.

 

[Hawkiz]

OK, so does the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) belong in Scripture or not? Is it divinely inspired, or isn’t it? I understand that nowadays most scholars believe that it was not authentically written by Mark: does that mean it’s not divinely inspired?

Here’s an interesting article:

bible.org/article/irony-end-textual-and-literary-analysis-mark-168

If anyone else has any interesting resources, please let me know.

It was a very interesting article, thank you for sharing.

Does it belong in Scripture? Yes.
Divinely inspired? Yes.
Not written by the author we call Mark? Of little consequence to me personally. We can’t nail down who wrote Hebrews either, and there has been debate on 2, 3 John, Revelation, who was the ‘real’ Matthew, etc. and we don’t doubt if they are divinely inspired…

I’m going to stick with the canon of Scripture. The NT has been preserved as we find it for many centuries. I will trust that God wouldn’t allow His word to be misrepresented for so long if there was error to be found in it…and I do not foresee that anyone could show me irrefutable proof that those verses did not belong (were added centuries later for some unknown reason).

Peace in Christ

 

[Marty_E]

OK, so does the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) belong in Scripture or not? Is it divinely inspired, or isn’t it? I understand that nowadays most scholars believe that it was not authentically written by Mark: does that mean it’s not divinely inspired?

First, an observation. No biblical scholar ever established his reputation by publishing an article or book arguing that 1 + 1 = 2. No, he establishes his reputation arguing that 1 + 1 =1, or 1 + 1 = 3. There is only one problem: 1 + 1 = 2.

My conclusions:

The ending of Mark belongs in Scripture and is divinely inspired because the Catholic Church has accepted it into the Canon of Scripture.

We should never have given the Germans the Bible. What they’ve done and begun with their so-called “scholarship” is an abomination.

.

 

[Achilles6129]

It was a very interesting article, thank you for sharing.

No problem. I am looking for more resources on this subject.

I’m going to stick with the canon of Scripture. The NT has been preserved as we find it for many centuries. I will trust that God wouldn’t allow His word to be misrepresented for so long if there was error to be found in it

Do you know that there are different families of texts which are more reliable than others? For example, most scholars today conclude that the Alexandrian texts are the best, then the Western, and then the Byzantine (which the 1611 KJV is based). If you just take a chapter out of the Bible (say, Rev. 1) and put the 1611 KJV versus a modern translation (like the NASB) you will notice the difference.

It seems that none of these textual variants involve any doctrine (except, perhaps, for fasting) but there is no question that there are some minor textual variants there.

 

[Achilles6129]

My conclusions:

The ending of Mark belongs in Scripture and is divinely inspired because the Catholic Church has accepted it into the Canon of Scripture.

Well, it definitely made it into the canon of Scripture at a very early date, so clearly God allowed it into Scripture. I guess my question to you would be: Didn’t the Catholic church also accept the Textus Receptus (which the 1611 KJV is based on) which is a faulty version of the New Testament? All that people had access to for many years were the Byzantine texts…they didn’t know, as we do today, that the Alexandrian texts are more reliable.

We should never have given the Germans the Bible. What they’ve done and begun with their so-called “scholarship” is an abomination.

I will admit that much theological scholarship today is liberal or moderate. Also, I believe the realm of theology has shifted steadily to the left (with “conservative” being steadily redefined as moderate, and so on) as the centuries have passed. Also, much of the scholarship today seems unnecessarily critical.

 

[robertericleech]

We should never have given the Germans the Bible. What they’ve done and begun with their so-called “scholarship” is an abomination.

Hahahahaha…I want to use that as my new signature!

 

[Augustine3]

OK, so does the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) belong in Scripture or not? Is it divinely inspired, or isn’t it? I understand that nowadays most scholars believe that it was not authentically written by Mark: does that mean it’s not divinely inspired?

Here’s an interesting article:

bible.org/article/irony-end-textual-and-literary-analysis-mark-168

If anyone else has any interesting resources, please let me know.

The Roman Catholic biblical canon. “Decretum de Canonicis Scripturis,” issued in 1546 at the fourth session of the Council of Trent, affirms that Jesus commanded that the gospel was to be preached by His apostles to every creature—a statement clearly based on Mark 16:15. The decree proceeded to affirm, after listing the books of the Bible according to the Roman Catholic canon, that “If anyone receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” Since Mark 16:9-20 is part of the Gospel of Mark in the Vulgate, and the passage has been routinely read in the churches since ancient times the Council’s decree affirms the canonical status of the passage.

Here’s an interesting read: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16