by Edwin Crozier<\/p>\n
Some of the newer translations, such as the ESV I commonly use, have made it abundantly clear there is a huge question about whether or not Mark 16:9-20 are originally part of Mark. Smack in the middle of the page, we find the message: “Some of the Earliest Manuscripts Do Not Include 16:9-20.”<\/p>\n
I’m no textual critic. I’m no Greek scholar. There are plenty of people smarter than me and more informed about textual criticism who are faithful Christians who believe Mark 16:9-20 is the original ending. However, there are plenty of people smarter than me and more informed about textual criticism who are faithful Christians who believe it is not. As the old politician said, “I’m for my friends.”<\/p>\n
I’m honestly out of my depth to try to make a case either way. However, like all Bible readers, I have to decide what to make of this.<\/p>\n
Don’t let the skeptical critics lead you astray about what this message means. Some say we can’t even know what was originally in the Bible because of passages like this one. They will turn to this passage and a couple of others to claim we don’t know if they should even be there, as if we can’t tell if any passage should be in the Bible.<\/p>\n
That just isn’t true. In fact, far from indicating the Biblical text is an unknowable mess, this indicates the wealth of evidence we have about what is in the Bible. This question about the ending of Mark didn’t come about because skeptics dug in where believers feared to tread. Not at all. Bible believers who study manuscripts have brought to light much evidence regarding what is and what is not in the Bible. This question has come about not because we don’t have enough evidence, but because we have so much evidence. In fact, the very few passages that have this kind of doubt are actually a testimony to how much evidence we have for the certainty of what is in the Bible.<\/p>\n
Read and reread the final paragraphs in Mark as we now have it. What would be lost if we proved Mark originally ended his gospel at verse 8? Absolutely nothing.<\/p>\n
What is added to Christian doctrine and teaching if we read these verses as if original? Absolutely nothing.<\/p>\n
In other words, the argument about Mark 16:9-20 is an interesting scholarly debate. But pragmatically speaking, it makes little difference. Take it or leave it. Christianity will be the same. Giving allegiance to Jesus will look the same. Worshipping God will look the same.<\/p>\n
Even if it is proven that Mark did not actually pen Mark 16:9-20, we recognize that very early Christians believed the gospel account didn’t end at verse 8. Further, if these verses don’t represent what Mark originally wrote, they represent what very early Christians generally believed.<\/p>\n
Think about that for a moment. Some people like to question these final paragraphs because of the strong teaching on the necessity of baptism for salvation. However, if they want to claim Mark didn’t originally write these paragraphs, they have to admit what these verses include was so fully believed by early, post-Biblical Christians a later editor could add it and the general Christian population accepted it.<\/p>\n
Honestly, based on the three points above, I don’t have a dog in this fight about whether Mark 16:9-20 was originally written by Mark. Even if we proved it wasn’t inspired and needed to cut it out of our Bibles, I wouldn’t sweat it. Everything I want to teach from this passage, I can teach from the rest of Scripture.<\/p>\n
However, let’s note that while no one can add to the Word of God, having a later editor, redactor, or even supplementary author does not deny inspiration. In Mark 10:2-4, Jesus attributes the authorship of Deuteronomy to Moses. However, read Deuteronomy 34. Virtually no one believes Moses wrote Deuteronomy 34. Yet, I am unaware of anyone who believes in the inspiration of Scripture and the general authorship of Moses for the Pentateuch who says Deuteronomy 34 is uninspired or shouldn’t be there.<\/p>\n
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that means Mark 16:9-20 is necessarily in the same boat as Deuteronomy 34. I’m just saying, given the first three points above, we don’t have to be in a faith-shattering bind about these paragraphs.<\/p>\n
I realize I haven’t walked the elephant out of Mark 16. It’s still there. Folks still need to study it and talk about it. But I hope we’ve demonstrated it is a tamed elephant, not one to be frightened of. And I hope you found these points helpful as well.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
by Edwin Crozier Is It Even Supposed to Be There? Some of the newer translations, such as the ESV I commonly use, have made it abundantly clear there is a huge question about whether or not Mark 16:9-20 are originally part of Mark. Smack in the middle of the page, we find the message: “Some…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[27],"tags":[568,121],"class_list":["post-92809","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article","tag-accuracy-of-the-bible","tag-mark"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":621,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/is-mark-169-20-genuine\/","url_meta":{"origin":92809,"position":0},"title":"Is Mark 16:9-20 genuine?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"October 11, 2003","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Does\u00a0Mark 16:9-20\u00a0really belong in our Bibles? Answer: \"Is Mark 16:9-20 Spurious or Genuine?\" by Howard See is an excellent review of the question.\u00a0 For details on the question, see\u00a0The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20\u00a0by Jim Snapp. \"Some Bible scholars doubt the authenticity of 16:9-20, insisting that Mark did not write\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":56401,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/the-genuineness-of-mark-169-20\/","url_meta":{"origin":92809,"position":1},"title":"The Genuineness of Mark 16:9-20","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"November 29, 2007","format":false,"excerpt":"by Dudley Ross Spears The last verses from Mark's gospel, (Mark 16:9-20) have been called \"The Longer Ending of Mark.\" The first time I came across this criticism it was in response to quoting verses 15 and 16. Mark 16:16 affirms, \"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":627,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/the-authenticity-of-mark-169-20\/","url_meta":{"origin":92809,"position":2},"title":"The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"October 11, 2003","format":false,"excerpt":"by Jim Snapps II \"Does\u00a0Mark 16:9-20\u00a0belong in the Bible?\" The church has answered \"Yes\" for centuries. Many in the church still do. But in the 1800s, scholars questioned the originality of these 12 verses. Many scholars today take it for granted that the Gospel of Mark originally did not contain\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2003\/10\/64ManuscriptsChart.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2003\/10\/64ManuscriptsChart.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2003\/10\/64ManuscriptsChart.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2003\/10\/64ManuscriptsChart.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":623,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/is-mark-169-20-spurious-or-genuine\/","url_meta":{"origin":92809,"position":3},"title":"Is Mark 16:9-20 Spurious or Genuine?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"October 11, 2003","format":false,"excerpt":"by Howard See Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 454-455,\u00a0May 29, 1975 In a recent, late-night television interview of a snake-handling preacher from East Tennessee, the text of Mark 16:9-20 was attacked as being spurious. This was an effort to try to offset the teaching in Mark 16:18, \"'They shall take\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Article"","block_context":{"text":"Article","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/article\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":37770,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/could-the-freer-logion-have-also-been-removed-from-mark\/","url_meta":{"origin":92809,"position":4},"title":"Could the Freer Logion have also been removed from Mark?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"March 13, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Mr. Jim Snapps, I have read your article about\u00a0the various endings of the book of Mark. Since you mentioned the possibility of the deliberate removal of Mark 16:9-20 due to heretical tampering, isn't it also possible that the Freer Logion could have been also removed by heretics? The Freer\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":28718,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/what-do-you-think-about-the-hebrew-university-bible-project\/","url_meta":{"origin":92809,"position":5},"title":"What do you think about the Hebrew University Bible Project?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"September 1, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: I want to know if you found this news link rather interesting, and if you can put some comments about it: \"In Jerusalem, scholars trace Bible's evolution.\" Answer: The Hebrew University Bible Project is conducting textual criticism, a common practice for biblical documents. I have no idea about the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92809","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=92809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92809\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}