Ending to Mark (16: 9-20)

Cited from You Tube

The abrupt ending to the Gospel of Mark seemed troubling to early readers, and one seems to have written an alternative that not only gave a more complete conclusion, but also inserted encouragements meaningful to Christian readers early in the 2nd century.

Mr. Gore's views will find definite disagreement from some within the Christian Church, especially many conservatives and fundamentalists. At Canadian Baptist Seminary (Trinity Western University), I wrote a research paper on the subject and did, and still do find the abrupt ending of Mark 16: 8 biblically and theologically acceptable.

Jesus Christ had risen, and the risen Christ being 'red-letter' documented and quoted in the text is not a biblical, New Testament requirement, in my view.

Again, we should be careful of what we add to orthodoxy in the Christian Church.

However:

My Marcan (Markan) professor reasoned that 16: 9-20 was indeed not written by the New Testament disciple, Mark, but by a Holy Spirit inspired scribe. This is a reasonable possibility, and according to scholarship other books in the New Testament may have been written in whole or part by anonymous scribes (Hebrews for example).

I had and have an intellectual difficultly with the theory presented in my seminary class, that Mark had died and therefore could not finish the text. My view on God's sovereignty reasons that as the Lord has Mark author the gospel, he would finish that gospel.

Edited from previous work on my Satire Und Theology website:

Mark 16: 9-20 does not appear in Codex Vaticanus (B),or Codex Sinaiticus (Sin), the two oldest groups of manuscripts. Marlowe (2006: 1).

(Gore comments likewise on the video).

The manuscripts have Mark ending at 16: 8. However, 16: 9-20 does appear in Codex Alexandrinus (A), which is a slightly newer manuscript. Miller (2005: 1). It is possible a scribe or scribes added 16: 9-20, which became part the majority of New Testament texts, but it does not change the essential message of the Gospel or New Testament. We have copies from the two older groups of manuscripts which allow scholars to speculate that it is possible that Mark 16: 9-20 was not written by Mark, but written by a scribe at a later date.

I do not see any need to place demands upon the Marcan text and state that it had to have contained an actual resurrection appearance. The ending of the book does make it clear that Christ was no longer in the tomb and was resurrected. The tomb was empty, and a man, likely of supernatural origin in 16: 6-7 made it clear that Christ had risen.

My hope is that a scribe or scribes did not think that the lack of a resurrection appearance and an abrupt ending meant that another ending had to be created. My New American Standard Bible has two different additional endings after 16: 8. However, if endings were added by scribes, God has still provided the Church with evidence of this from Codex Vaticanus (B),and Codex Sinaiticus (Sin). The Church could therefore take anything stated in these verses as less than Biblically authoritative, but these verses do not influence major Christian doctrines.

I therefore can view our present New Testament as an essentially accurate copy of the original inspired word of God. Mark 16: 9-20 does not appear in Codex Vaticanus (B),or Codex Sinaiticus (Sin), the two oldest groups of manuscripts. Marlowe (2006: 1). The manuscripts have Mark ending at 16: 8. However, 16: 9-20 does appear in Codex Alexandrinus (A), which is a slightly newer manuscript. Miller (2005: 1).

We have copies from the two older groups of manuscripts which allow scholars to speculate that it is possible that Mark 16: 9-20 was not written by Mark, but written by a scribe at a later date. God has therefore not allowed a corruption of New Testament theology at its core even if he did allow an uninspired scribe to write 16: 9-20 and allowed it to become part of the majority text. It is also possible that Mark died and God inspired an associate who had known Mark to complete the book which appears in the majority text. As noted, I do find this view problematic.

Marlowe, Michael D. (2006) ‘Mark 16: 9-20’, Bible-Researcher.com, Ohio. Marlowe

Miller, Dave (2005) ‘Is Mark 16: 9-20 Inspired?’, Apologetics Press.org, Montgomery, Alabama. Miller

The Wonderful Amazing World; Facebook