Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 by James Snapp Book Review

Rev Reads reviews James Snapp's Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20. James presents a thorough and well written defense of the longer ending of Mark which should be read by every student of the NT and especially the Gospel of Mark.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Great book. James has one of, if not, THE MOST thorough treatment of the subject. I'm surprised it hasn't caught on to a wider audience. The algorithm finally showed my your review after I had interviewed James on misinformation about Mark 16:9-20.

[@RevReads]

Man, I did this review a long time ago. Glad KZbin finally pulled it up for you.

[@Dwayne_Green]

@@RevReads I know right! Great Review, great book. James' work has played a big role in some of my text critical views.

[@coreymihailiuk5189]

I am now quite intrigued to read James Snapps book. I just started looking into this issue and as you stated many scholars feel the long ending is spurious. I am starting to doubt those claims.

[@RevReads]

You'll see from Snapp's work that the arguments against the longer ending are mostly smoke and mirrors.

[@helgeevensen856]

whao, ... that was top notch review... i agree 100% !! :)

[@Grant_Mooney]

Great Job. Doing a video on this very topic as i finish teaching through Mark and Have been really laboring to dig through the research and have found that the Scholarly Consensus is sadly rather shallow, biased, and unwarranted, at best, it is misleading (which happens on both sides of this debate of stretching the facts) but nevertheless, this is a contentious issue and I as well found James Snapp's book well researched and substantiated.

[@thomasjefferson6]

Shawn, in your classes, did your professors ever mention the works of John Burgon, Edward Hills, or Herman Hoskier, all of whom were scholarly critics of the Critical Text ? If Mark 16:9-20 is genuine, then the whole case for the Critical Text collapses, because it is based on the axiom that Codex B. Codex B, which omits verses 9-20, is the prop on which the modern critical text and its whole approach has been erected. If Codex B is wrong with regard to the last twelve verses of Mark, then it is revealed to be a highly correct manuscript, not the manuscript "closest to the autographs". So, no matter what the evidence for Mark 16:9-20 is, it will never be accepted by the Critical Text guild. Many (but not all) of the points made by James Snapp were made more than 100 years before by John Burgon in his book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark. As for James Snapp's book, it seems to be out of print, with only an Amazon kindle edition available.

[@RevReads]

James Snapp deals with much evidence that was original to his own personal work and also comments on manuscripts that we weren't aware of 100 years ago. With the regular discover of NT manuscripts, we need to keep updating our research and Snapp does great work.

[@nsptech9773]

You are right about this but I see many preachers and good theologians doubting the longer ending. I don't understand why! even though the evidence is right in front of them. Surely people can be mistaken but this mistake is heavy and I wonder how many people's faith must have been harmed with so-called foolishness of scholars

[@ibperson7765]

Im noticing a pattern in my environment. Person after person misled by their professors.

[@RevReads]

It happens a lot

[@ibperson7765]

@@RevReads Where can that book be purchased?

[@danhanshew4957]

So are you switching to the NKJV? Also, if I subscribe to your channel, can I send you I need to read and you tell me what they say? :)

[@RevReads]

I'm sharing my thoughts on the NKJV soon. If you subscribe to my channel, it will make all your reading dreams come true!

[@tellaaalli]

Ending is not Mark's style. He abruptly started Jesus's account and abruptly ended it. He's goal was to testify Jesus's resurrection and he ended it with wonder which was his style found throughout his book.

[@RevReads]

Have you read Mark in Greek yourself?

[@RevReads]

I've read Mark in the Greek from beginning to end twice. I've preached through every verse. The style of the longer ending fits just fine with Mark's writing style in the book. Mark never ended with a previous narrative without a conclusion. He never set up a need for a miracle and left us wondering how Jesus would respond. You can read Luke and then Paul and see a very different style. You can read Hebrews and then Matthew and see a different style. Those differences aren't there when comparing the longer ending of Mark to the rest of the book. The ending fits Mark's style.

[@tellaaalli]

@@RevReads No, I have not read it in Greek. It was my conclusion based on what I read from Mark’s book and some other analyses done from other people who have the knowledge on manuscripts and have spent the time on this topic. However, let me add this as well. Its important to find What God said and then Why He said it. So there is nothing wrong on putting efforts to get it right regardless of the outcome. My conclusion on this topic as an observer is that event if these verses were not originally part of Marks book, it would not change anything. Why, because you can find these in other books and its still Biblical. The point everyone is misquoting or misunderstanding, is the application of it. Why God said these things to disciples is clear to me; They were to go on a difficult mission and snakes and food poisoning were part of the reality at the time since they would walk on foot and eat and drink wherever they land. So chanced for them to get bitten by snakes or get poisoned was real, but God promised them his supernatural power would protect them and these will be signs for them and others that God is with them. Now if Christians take these verses and boast about snake handling and drinking poising showing that they have supernatural power is completely ignorance on what The Word means. Miracles happen for a specific reason and in this case is to support the mission of The Great Commission. Anything else would mean total disaster and disappointment and real Christians should understand that by acting this way they temp God. Remember how our Lord Jesus responded at Matthew 4:5-7 it’s a model that all Christians should embrace and apply Bible teachings the same way.

[@shiningdiamond5046]

@@tellaaalli the snake handling is a reference to Moses and poison can be taken both literally and a spiritual sense in dealing with the sins of the world, there are many saints who were asked to drink poison by pagan and Muslims who contested the truth of the gospel based on these passages and came out on top.

[@nonewmsgs]

Interesting. I wish youd go more in depth in the evidence instead of describing it. This is a catch 22 for fundamentalists who have ro choose between the poisons and venomous snakes not being true vs part of the bible not being authentic.

[@RevReads]

I don't review books to read them for people but to encourage them to pick up the book for themselves and read it. You should read Snapp's book. No one goes into the same level of detail as he does. If you really want to see all the information on the longer ending of Mark, no one presents more of it.

[@nonewmsgs]

@@RevReads thank you for your response. I think i will check it out. Not only the vocabulary is different but the writing style and even the theology. It also breaks from the entire sandwich system mark used for the entire rest of the gospel. Conspicuously missing was that there are 5 known endings of mark. As you said this goes against expert consensus. Do you know if the author has submitted this in a more professional manner to a journal for peer review? Because if he hasn't why not

[@RevReads]

@@nonewmsgs what's the 5th ending?

[@vargaerwin851]

Mark, long version ? Fake.

[@RevReads]

Based on the available, you cannot easily dismiss the longer ending. The longer ending is the most logical and it fits very well with the writing of the entire Gospel of Mark.

[@alexlaxson3261]

@@RevReads If I may, No it does not, it is clearly a fake for a number of reasons, and one of the main reasons for it being fake is because it doesn't allow any wiggle room with the timing, they both supposedly happen around the same time and that is impossible.

[@RevReads]

@@alexlaxson3261 I don't understand your point

[@alexlaxson3261]

@@RevReads They both happen within the same time as each other