Is Mark 16:9-20 really part of the Bible?

No video

Is Mark 16:9-20 really part of the Bible?

Рет қаралды 13,034

Күн бұрын

Most Bibles have a note that says “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20.” How did these verses get into our modern Bibles? Should they be there?
One of the most puzzling parts of Mark’s gospel is this ending, because it ends so abruptly. In our earliest manuscripts, the Gospel ends in verse 8: “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” Then the book is done.
That’s a strange way to end. There is a longer ending, verses 9-20, but it’s clearly not written in Marks’ style. It uses a different vocabulary, has a different style, and contains a different theology. It’s almost certain that Mark didn’t write those last eleven verses.
So what happened? Some scholars think the last page of the original was lost. Probably a better solution is that Mark intended to end his Gospel this abruptly, because the Gospel itself is a call to respond. Just like the women, the readers of the Gospel heard the announcement of the resurrection. How are they going to respond to that announcement? With faith, or with fear?
For them and for us, the whole Gospel becomes a call to decision.
▶️ WATCH THE REST OF THE SERIES ON MASTERLECTURES:
masterlectures...
▶️ GET THE COMMENTARY:
zondervanacade...
▶️ TAKE THE ONLINE COURSE:
courses.zonder...

Пікірлер: 87

@MG-hi1ej 8 күн бұрын

Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vatican MS. 1209 of the fourth century. Dr. B. F. Westcott said that “the verses . . . are no part of the original narrative but an appendage.” (An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 338) Bible translator Jerome, in the fifth century, said that “almost all the Greek codices [are] without this passage.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it [that is, verses 9-20].” In commenting on the long and short conclusions of the Gospel of Mark, Bible translator Edgar J. Goodspeed noted: “The Short Conclusion connects much better with Mark 16:8 than does the Long, but neither can be considered an original part of the Gospel of Mark.”-The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament, p. 127.

@JamesSnapp 3 жыл бұрын

Dr. Strauss, I invite you to debate the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 with me, so people can hear about Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus (the second-century writers supportive of Mark 16:9-20 that you did not mention). Two hours, equal amounts of time, in an online venue of your choosing - and afterwards we each can donate $500 to a charity chosen by the other debater.

@bradvincent2586 3 жыл бұрын

I have definitely stumbled over this passage. But I also don’t fall into the KJV only crowd. Super curious if you have any suggestions to get a better understanding, thank you! Would love to see that debate

@HearGodsWord 2 жыл бұрын

I doubt he has the time to debate random people from the internet

@davidmathews9633 9 ай бұрын

Irenaeus also said Jesus was 50 when he died

@JamesSnapp 9 ай бұрын

How do you know that's not a scribal error in the extant text of "Against Heresies"? Also, so what? Irenaeus EXPLICITLY QUOTED Mark 16:19. It doesn't matter if Irenaeus was an absent-minded idiot sometimes; the point is that Irenaeus' copy of the Gospel of Mark included Mark 16:19 -- is this registering on your brain sir? @@davidmathews9633

@JamesSnapp 8 ай бұрын

@@davidmathews9633 - So what? That has nothing to do with Irenaeus' manuscript of the Gospel of Mark, you silly goose.

@JamesSnapp 3 жыл бұрын

Mark Strauss, I invite you to debate the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20, before a live audience. Anywhere. Anytime.

@vlatter9537 2 ай бұрын

Can I debate you about Mark 16:1 and a few other things ?

@JamesSnapp 19 күн бұрын

@@vlatter9537 Anytime anyplace. Set up a venue.

@vlatter9537 17 күн бұрын

@@JamesSnapp I'm just a regular man. Email? Phone?

@Your_MInd_is_A_weapon Жыл бұрын

The older manuscripts in question are the vaticanus and siniaticus both of which are NOT written by believers but rather unbelievers that wanted to diminish power of the word of God. And the obvious connection there is that Jesus speaks of supernatural signs that follow those who believe and all these signs promised by Jesus are done by the apostles in the BOOK OF ACTS.

@quanofhxd763 2 ай бұрын

lmao its the earliest complete manuscript of the new testament and one of the most important witnesses to the greek text of Septuagint its okay to be in denial

@Mr-pn2eh Жыл бұрын

Yes it should be in the Bible. Those verses contain essential doctrine of high importance that every Christian needs to know.

@Bhauer2011 11 ай бұрын

but what if that wasn’t the point of the bible…?

@izzie5610 Ай бұрын

If it was part of the Word, Paul would have instructed it too, be he didnt. It is the foundation of the false charismatic movement built on the foundation of hysteria.

@JamesSnapp 19 күн бұрын

This is still perhaps the most evasive and evidence-avoiding rejection of Mark 16:9-20 on the internet.

@dtcowlick 3 жыл бұрын

Mark may have 'penned' thru 16:8, but The HOLY SPIRIT is the AUTHOR of Scripture. You may have a "modern man aversion" to the true final verses ( vv 9-20 ), but they ARE God's Truth for all. Bless You Lord for watching over Your Word to perform it.

@supremesloth105 Жыл бұрын

And why would God let his people he created be condemned without the chance of repentance? Do you not think God himself would have the foresight that Christians would not be able to reach everyone in the world?

@louism8911 Жыл бұрын

@@supremesloth105 Look what happened to Cain and his descendants. Then the "sons of God," who are the descendants of Seth, saw the women of men who are likely descended from Cain, and they intermarried. But, God was not pleased because of the sinful actions which is the flesh, such as homosexuality, stealing, murdering, lying, and anything that opposes the fruit of the Spirit. Consequently, God decided to bring the flood, saving only Noah and his family along with the animals. As a result, the old world, including the city, passed away, and as fresh start started with Noah, leading to Christ, and eventually, us, so that we can become the sons of God. So...pretty much all about love, peace, joy, gentleness, meekness, and so on. It's a very nice feeling. By the way, after our death, we will go to the graves or Sheol in an unconscious state until the Lord returns. This means that people will not be in the New Jerusalem until after the final judgment day if that what it is. We will be resurrected in the same way that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. That is why Jesus refers to us as the children of the resurrection, as He is the resurrection and the life. He is also the way, the truth, and the life. If you confess that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and repent by acknowledging your sins, then you are saved. It's important to remember that we are not saved BY works but saved FOR works. Therefore, continue to work on your spiritual fruit to remain in Christ. That is the good news of Jesus. Galatians 5:16-26

@timroberts6695 Жыл бұрын

Mark knew his audience and knew what he was writing. We should not add to his text just because it challenges our views based on our western culture and the false teachings that the KJV is perfect and with out translational errors.

@Mr-pn2eh Жыл бұрын

The 1611 he Bible is perfect and without error. God promise to preserve his word. And he did. End of story.

@user-rx6yt7ix5e 5 ай бұрын

@@Mr-pn2ehwithout error, except all the original books taken out, added verses that weren’t present in the original manuscripts. But yeah, the “best”

@HoxtonLive 3 жыл бұрын

Is not strange and abrupt at all, here is the summary of the Gospel "For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," 1Co15:3-4. The people who tried to add to it were thinking like you Sir but Mark John was the assistant of Paul, he knew what he is doing. For the Cross of the Christ has power to save! Ro 1:16; 1Co 1:18.

@kaneezshah9677 3 жыл бұрын

I lost my friend because of this verse

@bucketsman9634 2 жыл бұрын

@@kaneezshah9677 Wym

@JamesSnapp 3 жыл бұрын

Dr. Strauss may want to reconsider the evidence from top to bottom on this subject. Perhaps in the process he can correct his erroneous identification of Codex L, which he called "020" in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary. Its correct # is 019. (020 is also called L but that is Codex Angelicus, containing Acts and Epistles, not Codex Regius).

@JamesSnapp 11 ай бұрын

Appealing to the eariest manuscripts is like appealing to the manuscripts with the best weather for keeping things dry. It is no guarantee of accuracy. What Dr. Strauss is hiding from his listeners is that over 1,650 Greek manuscripts of Mark include 16:9-20, and only two omit them with the closing title of the Gospel of Mark following. And Irenaeus, in 180, quoted Mark 16:19 from his copies of the Gospel of Mark; methinks Irenaeus, who was familiar with not only ancient Rome, but also Asia Minor (and his bishopric in Lyons), was better situated than anyone in this century, to tell us how the Gospel of Mark ended. And I remain willling to debate this question with Dr. Strauss at his convenience, whenever he finds time to stop spreading propaganda for the NIV and begin doing serious research.

@maxwellmaxwell3042 5 ай бұрын

Your statement only makes sense is the 1,650 Greek manuscripts were written first, which they weren’t. More likely that they were all copying the same additions. Furthermore, it’s disingenuous to bring up Irenaeus quoting Mark as if it wasn’t a whole century later. This comment is just antibiblical cope

@izzie5610 Ай бұрын

Perhaps you can let all these charismatic motivational speakers, who "deliver" christians from demons and "heal" the sick, know that they can bring the black mambas and poison onto the stage this coming Sunday and show people what will happen...............then we will finally know if this was part of Mark's Gospel or not. Then we will have confirmation whether it was written for the apostles or for us.

@Charles-tv6oi Жыл бұрын

Yes it belongs. Majority texts have it n it's quoted from before the shorter version of Mark AND it makes sense.. screw the corruptors

@frenkvortice3858 Жыл бұрын

Amen.

@Charles-tv6oi Жыл бұрын

@@frenkvortice3858 amen again! And other older texts line up with manuscripts for KJV too. Also can we really tell what teaching is older without fasting? Some texts reprinted van look newer but the teaching is older. While a scroll that nobody used could rot n look older but not be. It was never re printed due to wear n tare. NIV even makes it look like Jesus is sinning. They're the Alexandrians texts used also. They opposed St Stephen in Acts

@frenkvortice3858 Жыл бұрын

@@Charles-tv6oi amen you speak truth. We who are unworthy.... are made to be worthy. Not by boasting but by meakness. God is good. Thank you God for your son. I hope God will equip me to share the gospel how he would share it. There are still countless unsaved ones . Who needs to hear the gospel. But... even so. . Come Lord Jesus. See you in the clouds!

@BlessedOne686 2 ай бұрын

💯💯

@russell311000 2 жыл бұрын

I tell you I m learning so much stuff. Especially about Isaiah 7:14 in the Hebrew.

@sheriffcrandy Жыл бұрын

This was a surprise to me as well until I read the context. Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah which means young woman, not virgin. However, most young women are unmarried virgins and the word can be understood to mean virgin. When Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began transcribing the Hebrew scriptures into Greek in the third century BC, they used the word parthenos which is the Greek word for virgin. I think it's safe to say that it is understood that Isaiah was referring to a virgin and not simply a young woman.

@russell311000 Жыл бұрын

@@sheriffcrandy So what was the sign to King Ahaz? Please don't say Jesus Christ because he came in the flesh over 400yrs latter. King Ahaz didn't live that long.

@sheriffcrandy Жыл бұрын

@@russell311000 You're missing the part where it says "Hear oh house of David." It's not to Ahaz, it's to the country of Israel.

@russell311000 Жыл бұрын

@@sheriffcrandy So the LORD didn't help King Ahaz like he said he would? King Ahaz was about to fight 2 kings. King Rezin of Syria and King Pekah of Israel. Isaiah 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

@sheriffcrandy Жыл бұрын

@@russell311000 Yeah Ahaz refused to follow God's command to ask for a sign. I mean this prophecy is confirmed in Matthew so if you don't want to accept scripture then idk what to tell you. I'm not gonna get into an endless debate with you though.

@Imjustanotherguy 3 жыл бұрын

I am familiar with the research by James Snapp, and I believe Dr Strauss is in significantly in error. He really needs to read or interact with Snapp on the ending of Mark.

@optimumfilms 10 ай бұрын

I challenge anyone who believes the 9-20 verses to "drink deadly poisons" and see what happens. Didn't Revelation say it was a sin to add on to the Bible?

@YMeDoyElLujazo 4 ай бұрын

Yep this is weakening my faith

@mohamedahmane1116 2 ай бұрын

@@YMeDoyElLujazoCheck what Islam say about Jesus

@6lackRain Ай бұрын

@@YMeDoyElLujazoDont allow small things to weaken your faith brother, The OG 8 verses in Mark 16, describe an Angel telling the women who came to Jesus tomb, that he had risen and to tell his disciples, it ends there but we can assume since its one of the earliest gospels the rest of the verses were not complied yet. It doesnt make the resurrection less true brother

@cowboyhatsandpearlsnaps 9 ай бұрын

"While many scholars believe that Mark 16:9-20 was not part of the original doctrine, there are also many who argue that Hinduism was the first-ever religion. However, those of us who believe in Christ know that this isn't true. The essence of religion should not be based solely on scholarly opinions. It's crucial to note that a significant number of scholars uphold Mark 16:9-20 as true doctrine. The primary argument against this verse is its absence from some of the earliest manuscripts, even though it appears in many other ancient ones. Another aspect of the debate concerns the handwriting, which doesn't appear to be Mark's. But isn't God the true author of the Bible? He used men to convey His message, and this verse was one of those messages. Therefore, whether it was Mark's hand or someone else's that penned these verses, it's the message that truly matters."

@maxwellmaxwell3042 5 ай бұрын

If you have to ignore the evidence to make your argument, then your argument is not supported by the evidence.

@Miroslaw-rs8ip 4 ай бұрын

We know that the earliest few versions had space sufficient to write the remaining verses in, these older versions are flawed as they’re Alexandrian and there was Gnostic heresy. The remaining verses 9 to 20 are authentic as they describe what Jesus did in his ministry.