Modern translations exclude or place in brackets the last few verses of Mark 16, at the end of Mark’s Gospel. This leaves the Gospel with an abrupt ending, leaving many to question the translators’ decisions.
In my view, the arguments for the ending of Mark to be authentic are much weaker than for the authenticity of the women taken in adultery.
The NET Bible translators explain (and I again add paragraphing to make reading easier),
The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected MSS (א B).
The following shorter ending is found in some MSS: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point.
Most MSS include the longer ending (vv. Mar 16:9-20) immediately after v. Mar 16:8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. Mar 16:14 and Mar 16:15] Θ ƒ13 33 2427 Û lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek MSS that had this ending.
Several MSS have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek MSS lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious).
Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102–6).
All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. Mar 16:8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. Mar 16:8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. Mar 16:9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. Mar 16:8.)
Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, Mar 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at Mar 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying.
This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself.
E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”
Textual critic Bruce Metzger comments,
Today we know that the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark (xvi. 9-20) are absent from the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and that in other manuscripts asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious.
The conclusion of the textual critics to exclude this material is particularly controversial in the Churches of Christ because Mark 16:16, dealing with baptism, is among the excluded verses. But, of course, there are plenty of other verses dealing with baptism that are not in doubt, and Mark 16:16 is hardly essential to the case made by Church of Christ advocates.
Indeed, we tend to undercut our position on baptism when we complain too loudly about the exclusion of the ending of Mark, because it makes us appear willing to determine the text of the Bible to suit our doctrine rather than determining the text first and our doctrine second.
Jay, could you please explain what you mean by “authentic” when describing this particular writing? In usual language, if something is “not authentic”, it is untrustworthy, or counterfeit. Could you elaborate, please?
Jay
Your opinion depends heavily on the minority of MSS. If I were to take your approach, wherever there is any variation that happens in a minority of MSS, I would have to count as suspect any majority text. That seems to assert the idea that only those least attested and least copied variations can be approached without skepticism. Considering the vast number of minor variations, we would have a tremendously abridged version of the scriptures.
And yet you claim that this is a ‘more reliable’ approach. I cannot agree with your assessment, no matter how popular it may be becoming in textual criticism circles. Your view is like having ten witnesses at a crime scene who agree on what happened and who did the crime, but you prefer the view of the fellow who had an indirect view from across the room of only some of the events. Your bias leads you to prefer the minority view. It just fails every test of persuasive value.
Charles I believe you are insinuating, when the scholars begin picking at scripture and judge whether it is reliable or not, they place doubt on the whole book.
1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
Our dear Laymond, as usual, has no earthly idea what I am talking about, but cannot resist the strange compulsion to explain my words anyway –as negatively as he can– and to try to chastise me in the process. Yawn.
Once again, the modern “scholars” are willing to reject a passage of scripture because of the deficiency of the available 3rd century manuscripts. Yet we know the passage existed in the 2nd century, and we know it was deemed to be inspired scripture, through the testimony of people like Irenaeus and Tatian. Moreover, church leaders in the 300’s (who had far more manuscript evidence than we do) accepted the passage and included it in the translations that became the official scriptures of the Catholic church. We do not know better than they did. They had far more, and far better evidence.
Charles , you are right most times I have not a clue what you say, I can’t understand people who speak in unknown tongues. And if you notice I said this is what you might be saying. evidently I was wrong. so pardon me. I should have known you would not object to “picking and choosing” you do it most times.
As usual, Jay explains why he believes as he does and some of “us” disagree. Good for discussion groups where differing views can be expressed without rancor. I’m no expert on textual criticism, but I have an opinion. I think Jay is right. I long ago quit citing Mark 16:16 as evidence about the baptism commanded by Jesus. My understanding of what Jesus commands was not based on that verse, so I didn’t change and start questioning Acts 2:38 as some of our teaching brethren now do.
I fully agree with whoever wrote, “He that believes and IS BAPTIZED will be saved.” I’m confident that is the teaching of Jesus. And that miracles accompanied preaching in the apostolic age is obviously true. Matthew spells out clearly what is the “great commission” many now are saying is no part of winning souls to Jesus. Jesus commands baptism for new believers. We do well to obey Jesus if we seek to be saved by Him. But our teaching need not be based on a writing which many scholars say is not genuinely part of apostolic teaching.
Laymond and Charles, I’d like to remind you of a scripture of which there is no question of authenticity:
“Galatians 5:22-25…But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.”
We are privileged to be able to study this and dialogue with one another. We owe Jay our gratitude for leading the study in this fashion.
Jay, thank you.
Grizz,
What if 9 of the 10 “witnesses” who agree are merely repeating what they heard the first of the 10 say and that 1 was 300 yards from the crime with an obstructed view – while two others in the room identify the “perp” conclusively even though their independent testimony may differ in minor particulars. Which “version” would you accept as more likely to be true? Ten said Joe did it, but 9 were ‘hearsay;’ two said Bill did it, but differed about how long was in the room before doing the crime. If you only count the number of witnesses, you come up with one answer; if you also look at the opportunity each witness had and test the quality of the witness by how much they tend to agree with other witnesses with similar opportunity, you have another answer.
Charles,
In textual criticism, a book or passage is “authentic” if it is actually written by the person to whom it is attributed. Thus, Mark 16:9-20 is authentic if it comes from the pen of Mark. If it were written by Paul, it would not be “authentically” Marcan, though we could still accept it as Pauline.
The heretical books (for example THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS) is not considered authentic because there is no evidence Thomas wrote it.
Griz – You might like http://coldcasechristianity.com/category/writings/belief-writings/ by J. Warner Wallace. He deals with “reliability” of the writings (Can we believe this is something Jesus taught) more than the “academic” question of “authenticity”. I’m personally not too hung up on these things. It seems we have more than enough “uncontested” writings to give a clear picture of who Jesus was and his “mission” here on earth to get too wrapped up in “disputing over words” (and whether they should be included in the canon or not. (and people who are passionately committed to Jesus still debate over correct “interpretation” of those writings without getting into the ones like this.)
Jerry, if the NT writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit, would that not make Him the actual author? If so, it seems to me that any concern about authenticity would be not about the person who took pen in hand, but the true Author. (After all, we don’t ascribe Romans to Tertius.) If authenticity is about the proper attribution of human authorship, then the book of Hebrews cannot be authenticated at all.
It seems to me that the salient question about the words we read in the NT is not whether or not Peter wrote them, or Paul, or Tertius for that matter. But whether or not these words are from God. And antiquity does not, cannot, answer this question. Antiquity does not validate the real Source. Only the Holy Spirit can do this.
And this is not bad news at all.
The next thought that comes to mind is that it was the early church who attributed the Gospels as they are. No claim is made to authorship in the texts themselves. Had the early church mistakenly attributed the Gospel of Mark to, say, Andrew, (or attributed the work of several writers to John alone) would the words then not be worthy of inclusion in the canon?
Charles,
I agree that the ultimate test is whether the text was inspired in the same sense that the OT is inspired.
Therefore I consider the pericope adulterae inspired, as does nearly all of Christendom–but not part of John.
I can’t canonize anything by myself but the church has all but canonized the passage.
OTOH I don’t see the ending of Mark as inspired. It’s copied heavily from John and Mark but the rest sounds foreign to Mark and tacked on to me. I don’t consider the text inspired.
Most of the time the textual critical conclusion suits my intuitive sense of what is inspired.
Many years ago i read the ECFs up to Nicea and was impressed with how very uninspired the ECFs appeared.
Nonetheless I see no practical way for Christendom to declare a changed canon. We have to watch as the Spirit blows through the churches, building consensus over time.
I observe that, except for the PA, The church universal seems to developing a consensus around the critical text.
Jay said, “Most of the time the textual critical conclusion suits my intuitive sense of what is inspired.”
I don’t doubt this at all. But it is to me, as we are speaking of determining “hath God said?”, a singularly unsatisfying end to the matter. There seems to be something– or Someone– missing in the whole discussion..
Charles,
I have no idea what you’re trying to say. If you think God has been left out, you might check the meaning of “inspired.”
So I figure you’re talking about Bruce Metzger, the premier textual critic living. And we certainly should thank him for his years of hard work.
Jay, I am not sneaky. I am not talking about Metzger, or I would have mentioned him.
As to God being left out, when we do not include (nor need) His current voice in our determination of whether a piece of parchment represents something He said, then we literally place ourselves in the place to say, “I believe this is God speaking because somebody else says it is.” But that “somebody” upon whom we have hung our confidence is NOT the Author. We actually claim to be able to determine what are God’s words and what are not entirely upon OUR wisdom and authority, specifically our skills as linguists and historians. How this varies from Joe Smith’s “witnesses” of the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, is merely in antiquity and linguistic sophistication. The source of authority remains entirely human.
A person who accepts a portion of scripture by faith may turn out to be wrong, but is at least depending upon God. The methodology being applies here does not need Him at all,. It can be as readily applied to the Iliad, and does not differ when used by an atheist from when it is used by a person of faith.
Perhaps you are speaking of your own faith when you speak of your intuitive sense in this area, but as you generally speak quite carefully, I was taking you literally. When you reviewed Shank’s book, you regularly (and rightly) noted the paucity of the presence of Jesus in the message he presented. Perhaps one could review the methods and arguments presented in the last several posts and look for similar indicators in the conclusions drawn.
Jay,
I commend to you my book, “Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20.” You can get it as an e-book on Amazon for a dollar. Or just e-mail me and request a digital copy.
If you have any questions after reading that, I’d be glad to address them.