Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?

[Ghostdog]

i always wondered about this ever since i heard the end of mark was at verse 8.

 

Question

Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?

Answer

Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later by scribes. The King James Version of the Bible, as well as the New King James, contains vv. 9-20 because the King James used medieval manuscripts as the basis of its translation. Since 1611, however, older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv. 9-20 were not in the original Gospel of Mark.

In addition, the fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9–20, although they doubtless knew those other endings existed. In the second century, Justin Martyr and Tatian knew about other endings. Irenaeus, also, in A.D. 150 to 200, must have known about this long ending because he quotes verse 19 from it. So, the early church fathers knew of the added verses, but even by the fourth century, Eusebius said the Greek manuscripts did not include these endings in the originals.

The internal evidence from this passage also casts doubt on Mark as the author. For one thing, the transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Greek word translated “now” that begins v. 9 should link it to what follows, as the use of the word “now” does in the other synoptic Gospels. However, what follows doesn’t continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, describing instead Jesus’ appearing to Mary Magdalene. There’s no transition there, but rather an abrupt and bizarre change, lacking the continuity typical of Mark’s narrative. The author should be continuing the story of the women based on the word “now,” not jumping to the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Further, for Mark to introduce Mary Magdalene here as though for the very first time (v. 9) is odd because she had already been introduced in Mark’s narrative (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1), another evidence that this section was not written by Mark.

Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark’s Gospel. These last verses don’t read like Mark’s. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark, and the structure is very different from the familiar structure of his writing. The title “Lord Jesus,” used in verse 19, is never used anywhere else by Mark. Also, the reference to signs in vv. 17-18 doesn’t appear in any of the four Gospels. In no account, post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, or laying hands on the sick. So, both internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark.

While the added ending offers no new information, nor does it contradict previously revealed events and/or doctrine, both the external and internal evidence make it quite certain that Mark did not write it. In reality, ending his Gospel in verse 8 with the description of the amazement of the women at the tomb is entirely consistent with the rest of the narrative. Amazement at the Lord Jesus seems to be a theme with Mark. “They were amazed at his teaching” (Mark 1:22); “They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves” (Mark 1:27); “He healed the paralytic, and they were all amazed and were glorifying God saying, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this’” (Mark 2:12). Astonishment at the work of Jesus is revealed throughout Mark’s narrative (Mark 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6, 15, 32; 10:24, 32; 11:18; 12:17; 16:5). Some, or even one, of the early scribes, however, apparently missed the thematic evidence and felt the need to add a more conventional ending.

 

from got questions

[AdHoc]

4 hours ago, Ghostdog said:

Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark’s Gospel. These last verses don’t read like Mark’s. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark, and the structure is very different from the familiar structure of his writing. The title “Lord Jesus,” used in verse 19, is never used anywhere else by Mark. Also, the reference to signs in vv. 17-18 doesn’t appear in any of the four Gospels. In no account, post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, or laying hands on the sick. So, both internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark.

The debate over the end of Mark rages on, and you have brought good arguments. I doubt if I can change your mind but I would like to put forward a counter arguments for your consideration.

The first is simple. In Daniel 4 we are assured that ....

35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Now, either this claim is that of an imposter and we can scrap the whole Bible, or it is true. And if it is true then God is able to get the Bible He wants. This then opens two avenues. (i) God was happy for men not to have what He wanted for them, or (ii) God has, as the verse above says, done what He wants despite the arguments against this section of scripture. We all have to make a choice, and it seems to me that these verses at the end of Mark have weathered a huge storm and are still standing. My intellect may call them into question, but my faith says God got what He wanted.

My second comment puts forth a case for the section you have mentioned above. I will show the validity of those four miracles. It will be up to you to decide how strong my argument is.

Speaking in tongues and laying hands on the sick. Notwithstanding the size and power of the Roman Catholic Church, Christianity's influence is remarkable in the world. It is simply not to be stopped. And because it reaches and touches so many, it would be the target of continuous counterfeiting. Already we have hundreds of "gurus" who claim special powers from God in the name of Jesus and who lead gullible Christians into mischief. One very effective means of stopping an even bigger quota of imposters, is that Christianity can ONLY be traced back to the events of Jerusalem. When the Holy Spirit was given in Jerusalem at that glorious Pentecost, tongues and healing were not only useful to the cause, but they were a "sign" of God's involvment. And twice more in Acts is the Holy Spirit given for good reason and the SIGNS connected it with Jerusalem.

In Chapter 10 and 11 of Acts we see the resistance of Jews in allowing the Gentiles into the Church. Peter at first refused and then after he had  been to the Gentile House, he faced heavy opposition in Chapter 11. But at the house of Cornelius in Acts 10 the Holy Spirit was given to in the same way as Pentecost. The net result of this is that the Churches that had been made mostly of Jewish converts were forced to recognize that God was moving equally amongst the Gentiles. Without it the Apostles would most probably refused the Gentile converts and the unity of the Church would never have been established. What convinced the Apostles was that the events of Jerusalem were repeated.

The second time this happened was at Ephesus in Acts Chapter 19. Apollos, who was not clear on the Baptism in Jesus' Name, had taught the Ephesians John's Baptism. Now in Acts 2:38 Peter makes an emphatic statement. "Believe AND be Baptized AND YOU WILL receive the Holy Spirit". Hoping not to cause a diversion of this thread, it is clear from this simple and plain statement that John's Baptism was not enough and that Immersion in Jesus's Name allowed God to pour out His Holy Spirit. To prove this the same events of Jerusalem were attached to a Church far from Jerusalem - Ephesus.

I propose that these signs were critical to the spread of the primitive Church to preserve its ORIGIN in the events of Jerusalem that fateful Passovers and Pentecost. No counterfeiters could claim that they started the Church of Christ.

Drinking a deadly thing and taking up venomous serpent. I would first like to point out that these "signs" are not ordered by the Lord. They would "follow". That is, they would be exceptions and they would rather "happen" than be induced. To attempt to repeat them is not called for and is folly. Second, I would like to point out that "poison" is not mentioned. It is rather drinking something that would cause death. This is important as we will presently see.

The second letter of Paul's to the Corinthians, among other things, lays forth the validity of Paul's calling. In Second Corinthians Paul seems to be overly occupied with himself. But it is not for nothing. If Paul's rank and ministry are called into doubt, a large and crucial portion of the New Testament would be in doubt. So Paul vehemently defends his calling. But God not only inspires Paul, but He gives two unequivocal events to establish Paul. After Mark has written concerning these tow signs, they both happen to Paul!

The Apostles at first refused Paul, and then accepted him with doubts about his teachings. In their minds was the Saul who murdered, or caused the murder of Christians. In Matthew 25:31-46 we can see the effects of just refusing a glass of water to a Christian - the Lake of Fire. What would be the penalty for touching God's Church? Well, we know that in 1st Corinthians those Christians who took the Lord's Table unworthily got sick and died (1st Cor.11:26-30). The Cup of the Lord became a "deadly" thing for these Christians. If God had not chosen Paul and Paul was an imposter, he would have died by taking the Lord's Cup unworthily. the Lord's Cup is a deadly thing to the unworthy Christian, and Paul did not die when he drank it. He MUST be ordained by God.

Paul's ministry of taking the gospel to the Gentiles and building Churches ended when he went down to Jerusalem. He was warned by four independent and confirmed sources NOT to go down to Jerusalem. He went - and that ended his ministry. But God was not finished with Paul. He still had two duties to do. (i) He was still to write some very important letters, and (ii) he was to preach to kings. Critics, not knowing this, would say that Paul's failure in going down to Jerusalem was akin to king Saul's debacle with Agag, and they would disregard everything after Jerusalem. But no! God is not finished with His chosen vessel. And how does He confirm this? By Paul being involved in a sign that Mark wrote of - the taking up AND being bitten by a venomous serpent. And who better than Mark to write this as Mark, with a hefty dispute, was left behind by Paul in Acts 15 as not up to the rigors of evangelizing and building Gentile Churches. Humanly speaking, Mark had no reason to back Paul.

I propose that these two "signs" confirmed Paul to all men as a servant of the Most High, even though he had killed Christians and even though he had failed in going to Jerusalem. Paul's authority is established twice by special signs predicted by Mark.

[Waggles]

6 hours ago, Ghostdog said:

Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?

YES without doubt.

The controversy arises because of the rise of Romanism in Christianity and the dissipation of the original gospel, speaking in tongues as the Bible evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit, and also the loss of the 9 gifts of the Holy Spirit functioning in the body of Christ. With the loss of the Spirit-filled ekklesia Mark 16:9-14 and 15-20 becomes problematic for Babylonian state religion. 

For here Jesus sets out exactly a standard that both discipleship and doctrine can be measured against. But Rome does not practice this any more thus the mutilation and editing of manuscripts begins. Thankfully there are sufficient manuscripts intact in many libraries to keep the word of God true.

Ivan Panin, a mathematician and Bible scholar was also able to prove that these verses are indeed God inspired. He examined the arithmetical values of the original Greek words and found that they contained numerous patterns of multiples of 7. This is indicative of all true scripture in both the original Hebrew and the Greek. God seals his word from apocryphal writings and inserted verses. There are many scholarly books written on Bible Numerics and the truth of Mark 16:9-20.

Mark 16:9  Now when he was risen early on the first of the week, he appeared first to Mary *Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 
16:10  SHE went and reported to them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 
16:11  And THEY, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. 
Jesus Appears to Two Disciples
16:12  And after these things he was manifested in another form to two of them walking, as they were proceeding into the country. 
16:13  And THEY went away and reported to the rest: neither believed they them. 
The Great Commission
16:14  And afterward he was manifested to the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he rebuked their *unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him risen from the dead. 
16:15  And he said to them, Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 
16:16  Who hath believed and is baptized shall be saved; but who hath disbelieved shall be condemned. 
16:17  And these signs shall follow them that have believed: in my *name shall they cast out demons, speak with tongues; 
16:18  and in their hands they shall take up serpents, and if they drink aught deadly, it shall in now wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 
16:19  So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into *heaven, and sat down at the right hand of *God. 
16:20  And THEY went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed.   [NENT]

[Waggles]

7 hours ago, Ghostdog said:

Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?

YES I found them to be true.

Millions of Pentecostal Christians can testify to the truth of Mark 16, especially 15-20.

We believed the scriptures and received the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the Bible evidence of speaking in tongues just as Jesus promised believers would.

Matthew 7:22 is a reference by Jesus to Mark 16; and Mark 16:9-20 is also upheld in Acts and the epistles.

If these verses were not true then Christians would not experience the same as what is promised.

Yes we can cast out demons in the name of Jesus; yes we can speak in tongues; yes we can enjoy divine protection from dangers; yes we can and do lay hands on the sick for healing. Yes the Spirit-filled church is rife with miracles and the power of God.

[The_Patriot21]

Ive heard this argument about this and other passages...and usually it was to justify not following certain doctrines.

Thing is while these are arguably the oldest "greek" texts they are NOT the original. And pretty much all greek texts from that era that translators use, are incomplete, so its no surprise that it would be incomplete as well.

I know im likely to get stoned for this, but there is one complete document from that era, that very likely was translated from the original greek. That document is the latin Vulgate.

You can say what you want about the Catholic church, but one thing they were very good at was record keeping and preserving Gods written word. And the latin Vulgate contains all the texts that those two Greek manuscripts do not.

Add into that the fact that nothing in these passages of scripture contradict other scriptures. You can also tell by the style of writing that they were written by the same author, and much of what is in these texts are repeated in other gospels/books, the only logical conclusion is yes, those verses do indeed belong in the Bible.

 

[TheBlade]

Agree yes

[AnOrangeCat]

20 hours ago, Ghostdog said:

Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?

Interesting question, which I'd answer with a question.

Do the verses line up with the rest of scripture, particularly with regards to the rest of the NT? I'd say yes, they do.

[Omegaman 3.0]

I don't know, but I am suspicious. For one thing, not only are they not in the older texts, but since it is held that Luke and Mark were written from Marks' gospels, I find it odd that these other two do not contain part of it. Luke, not so worrisome, since he is not an apostle (and neither is Mark for that matter), but Matthew was present, so his stuff is 1st hand, eyewitness, that should count for something. 

Now of course, one does not need to be a witness, when one is inspired, and Luke seems to have been careful to interview people who were eyewitnesses, and he seems to be good at it, and I appreciate that he did, as well as the book of the Acts. Good job doctor!

Most of that passages, seems harmless enough, and non-contradictory in terms of what it describes, it seems in character. However, these verses:

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Look out of character, like they don't have continuity with the rest, like an unwarranted, peculiar subject change out of the blue. I am inclined to go with the theory, that they are someones' notes, writting in the margin, by some owner of a manuscript, that were later copied into subsequent manuscripts, innocently not knowing that they were not part of the original text.

I know there are some charismatic extremists, who handle snakes, not big deal, I have handled them a lot myself, but not for religious reasons. Those people are putting God to the test (foolish - since He did not invite them to do so in that way) or are doing it to demonstrate to their buddies, how spiritual they are (at least that is what I think). I don't know if any of them have swallowed a bunch of deadly poison though as a test. You can handle snakes, they have (mostly) predictable behavior, but a deadly ingestion of poison has it's own predictable result, we call it death. If indeed they are not doing that (an I cannot recommend highly enough that they do NOT try it), then they are demonstrating their faith in only part of it, the less scary part of it.

So, most of it, I don't care, but the snakes and poison part, I doubt it belongs, I certainly do not consider that part inspired, and therefore I do not think it belongs, the rest probably not either, but as I said, it is harmless.

I am more curious about why anyone wants to know, as I am curious about how that affects us. If it belongs or does not belong, how does that affect you faith, your walk, your worship, etc. If you removed the entire book of Mark, is would not affect mine one way or the other, as far as I know, so I see the concern as more of a distraction than anything.

[Guest]

(Mark 16:9)  [[Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.
(Mark 16:10)  She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
(Mark 16:11)  But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.
(Mark 16:12)  After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.
(Mark 16:13)  And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.
(Mark 16:14)  Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.
(Mark 16:15)  And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
(Mark 16:16)  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
(Mark 16:17)  And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
(Mark 16:18)  they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
(Mark 16:19)  So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
(Mark 16:20)  And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.]]  [ESV]

This is the biblical text in question.  For me, there is no question.  It should be included.  The fact that the oldest Greek manuscripts are from 325 to 340 AD is important to note.  But the following makes this irrelevant.

Quote

· Papias refers to Mark 16:18. He wrote around A.D. 100.

· Justin Martyr’s first Apology quoted Mark 16:20 (A.D. 151).

· Irenaus in Against Heresies quoted Mark 16:13 and remarked on it (A.D. 180).

· Hippolytus in Peri Charismaton quoted Mark 16:18 and 19. In his homily on the heresy of Noetus, he refers to Mark 16:19. He wrote while he was Bishop of Portus (A.D. 190-227).

· Vicentius, Bishop of Thibari, quoted from 2 of the verses in the 7^th Council of Carthage held under Cyprian (A.D. 256). Augustine, a century and a half later, in his reply, recited the words again.

· The apocryphal Acts of Pilate contains Mark 16:15-18 (thought to be written in the somewhere around A.D. 200).

· The Apostolic Constitutions clearly allude to 16:15 in two places and quote Mark 16:16 outright (thought to be written somewhere in the late third century or the early fourth century).

b. The overwhelming majority of ancient manuscripts do include this passage.

Source: Mark 16

The above quoted material proves Mark 16:9-20 was available and use well before the later exclusions by Eusebius and Jerome.  To me, this settles the question and we should consider Mark 16:9-20 as scripture without asterisk. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[Willa]

I believe that last portion of Mark is valid.  One reason I no longer read NASV is because of this portion and other portions of the Bible that are omitted or that they cast doubt on.  It is very easy to disparage those portions that we don't want to believe.  Where does it stop?  Some people want to kick out everything Paul wrote.  It is dangerous to do these things.  The only portion I think probably shouldn't be there is in 1 John 5:6, and I am a strong Trinitarian.