Mark 16:19-20 (missing verses?)

[biscuit1953]

It was a long journey from being a King James Onlyist who worshiped a translation to where I am now but I would like some honest answers on this one particular passage of scripture.  I was talking to a man in my church who has studied Greek under Bruce Metzger and he is convinced that Mark's gospel should end with "for they were afraid." 

Aside from the fact that ending the "good news" on such a fearful note and leaving out the glorious resurrection of Christ makes no sense, why is it that some believe the last 12 verses should not be there?  It is found in every N.T. manuscript except Siniaticus and Vaticanus.  It is found in Chapter XLV First Apology of Justin Martyr (c. 160), well before Siniaticus and Vaticanus were penned.  Justin's student Tatian (c. 172), incorporated the "Longer Ending" into his, Diatessarona blended narrative consisting of material from all four canonical Gospels.  And Irenaeus (c. 184), in Against Heresies 3:10.6, explicitly cited Mark 16:19, stating that he was quoting from near the end of Mark's account.  This evidence is over a century older than the earliest manuscript of Mark 16.  Writers in the 200's such as Hippolytus, Porphyry, and the anonymous author of De Rebaptismate also used the "Longer Ending."

So why should this ending be expunged because two manuscripts don't have it in them?  Should we go through the Bible and find hard to explain passages and simply ignore them by trying to find some manuscript that leaves them out?  How is Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Onlyism any different than King James Onlyism?

I have no problem with putting in footnotes explaining that some passages are not found in certain manuscripts but to leave the passage completely out I believe is wrong.  James White believes Mark 16:9-20 should be there.  Thanks for any honest replies.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=biscuit1953]....a man in my church who has studied Greek under Bruce Metzger and he is convinced that Mark's gospel should end with...[/quote]

translation ≠  textual criticism 

[quote author=biscuit1953]Aside from the fact that ending the "good news" on such a fearful note and leaving out the glorious resurrection of Christ makes no sense, why is it that some believe the last 12 verses should not be there? [/quote]

It might make sense when you consider the entirety of Mark's gospel. It's very fast. It's the earliest and shortest of the gospels. It's almost more of a random collection of facts than a biographical account. Furthermore, the abbreviated ending would fit with the "what's next" thread running through Mark.

[quote author=biscuit1953]It is found in every N.T. manuscript except Siniaticus and Vaticanus.  It is found in Chapter XLV First Apology of Justin Martyr (c. 160), well before Siniaticus and Vaticanus were penned.  Justin's student Tatian (c. 172), incorporated the "Longer Ending" into his, Diatessarona blended narrative consisting of material from all four canonical Gospels.  And Irenaeus (c. 184), in Against Heresies 3:10.6, explicitly cited Mark 16:19, stating that he was quoting from near the end of Mark's account.  This evidence is over a century older than the earliest manuscript of Mark 16.  Writers in the 200's such as Hippolytus, Porphyry, and the anonymous author of De Rebaptismate also used the "Longer Ending." [/quote]

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. (I'm not making an argument either for or against its inclusion.)

[quote author=biscuit1953]So why should this ending be expunged because two manuscripts don't have it in them?  Should we go through the Bible and find hard to explain passages and simply ignore them by trying to find some manuscript that leaves them out?  How is Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Onlyism any different than King James Onlyism?

I have no problem with putting in footnotes explaining that some passages are not found in certain manuscripts but to leave the passage completely out I believe is wrong.  James White believes Mark 16:9-20 should be there.  Thanks for any honest replies.[/quote]

I can't think of any translations that don't include it (often footnoted).

 

[Ransom]

Aside from the fact that ending the "good news" on such a fearful note and leaving out the glorious resurrection of Christ makes no sense, why is it that some believe the last 12 verses should not be there?  It is found in every N.T. manuscript except Siniaticus and Vaticanus.

This argument is over-simplistic, as well as factually wrong. A 12-century manuscript, minuscule 304, also ends at verse 8. Mark actually ends in four different ways, depending on the manuscript:

• ending at v. 8
• the Longer Ending (the traditional 16:9-20)
• the Shorter Ending ("And they reported all the instructions briefly to Peter's companions. Afterwards Jesus himself, through them, sent forth from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.")
• the Freer Logion, inserted into the Longer Ending between vv. 14-15, reading: "And they excused themselves, saying: 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things dominated by the spirits. Therefore reveal your righteousness now.' They spoke to Christ. And Christ responded to them, 'The limit of the years of Satan's power is completed, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who sinned I was handed over to death, that they might return to the truth and no longer sin, in order that they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible heavenly glory of righteousness. But . . . .'"

The mere omission of the ending of Mark from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus cannot account for the remainder of these changes. It's important not to be reductionistic when discussing significant textual variants like this.

 

[biscuit1953]

Aside from the fact that ending the "good news" on such a fearful note and leaving out the glorious resurrection of Christ makes no sense, why is it that some believe the last 12 verses should not be there?  It is found in every N.T. manuscript except Siniaticus and Vaticanus.

This argument is over-simplistic, as well as factually wrong. A 12-century manuscript, minuscule 304, also ends at verse 8. Mark actually ends in four different ways, depending on the manuscript:

• ending at v. 8
• the Longer Ending (the traditional 16:9-20)
• the Shorter Ending ("And they reported all the instructions briefly to Peter's companions. Afterwards Jesus himself, through them, sent forth from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.")
• the Freer Logion, inserted into the Longer Ending between vv. 14-15, reading: "And they excused themselves, saying: 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things dominated by the spirits. Therefore reveal your righteousness now.' They spoke to Christ. And Christ responded to them, 'The limit of the years of Satan's power is completed, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who sinned I was handed over to death, that they might return to the truth and no longer sin, in order that they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible heavenly glory of righteousness. But . . . .'"

The mere omission of the ending of Mark from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus cannot account for the remainder of these changes. It's important not to be reductionistic when discussing significant textual variants like this.

I understand variants (I think) but if the traditional ending was quoted several times many years before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and supported by many manuscripts that may not be as old as them, why not believe they were in the originals?  What were the ancient fathers quoting from?  Once again the title is the Gospel of Mark.  There is no gospel with out the death, burial and resurrection. Can there not be an unhealthy devotion to two manuscripts just as Ruckmanites have an unhealthy devotion to one translation?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=biscuit1953]I understand variants (I think) but if the traditional ending was quoted several times many years before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and supported by many manuscripts that may not be as old as them, why not believe they were in the originals? What were the ancient fathers quoting from?...Can there not be an unhealthy devotion to two manuscripts just as Ruckmanites have an unhealthy devotion to one translation?[/quote]

No...there are other manuscripts that are just as old that have the other variant endings.

[quote author=biscuit1953] Once again the title is the Gospel of Mark.  There is no gospel with out the death, burial and resurrection. [/quote]

The gospel of Mark has all three even without any of the variant endings.

 

[biscuit1953]

[quote author=biscuit1953]I understand variants (I think) but if the traditional ending was quoted several times many years before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and supported by many manuscripts that may not be as old as them, why not believe they were in the originals? What were the ancient fathers quoting from?...Can there not be an unhealthy devotion to two manuscripts just as Ruckmanites have an unhealthy devotion to one translation?

No...there are other manuscripts that are just as old that have the other variant endings.

[quote author=biscuit1953] Once again the title is the Gospel of Mark.  There is no gospel with out the death, burial and resurrection. [/quote]

The gospel of Mark has all three even without any of the variant endings.
[/quote]
My mistake.  I was thinking of the ending "for they were afraid" has nothing to do with good news.

 

[Izdaari]

I hadn't heard of the Freer Legion variant. It doesn't seem authentic. The style is not like the rest of Mark.  :

I think the majority of scholars are correct that the longer ending is probably a later addition, not written by Mark. That's "probably"; they aren't certain it isn't authentic, they just think it's likely that it isn't, which is why it is included in all translations, even if as a footnote. But it doesn't matter much to me one way or the other, as I don't see that it makes any doctrinal difference. I don't care if anyone wants to read it as Scripture. I do mind if they want to use it as support for KJVO, since KJVO is ridiculous.