Can The End Of Mark's Gospel Be Trusted?

It is believed the the end of the gospel of Mark may have been added to the original text and was not intended by Mark himself. Doesn't this greatly affect the Biblical narrative? Frank Turek explains.

[CaptainBars]

Frank states here that the verse about snake-handling is the only part of Mark’s ending that is not taught elsewhere in the scripture. That’s not entirely true. The verse of Luke 10:19 has Jesus stating that He will give us “power to tread on serpents and scorpions, ” and in Acts 28:3-6, we see Paul handling a viper that bit his hand and yet suffers no ill effects afterward. Now when reading that latter text in proper context, we see that Paul did not deliberately seek out the snake for the purpose of showing off, but was only forced to handle it after it unexpectedly attacked him when he was gathering wood for the fire. Likewise, the earlier statement from Jesus in Luke’s gospel should not imply or suggest that we deliberately seek out snakes and scorpions to walk over, but rather shows that we can have faith that God would keep us safe if we were forced into such a predicament against our wills.

Hence, I’ve no doubt that the statement which Jesus makes in Mark 16:18 also shows that if we are thrown into a snake pit or poisoned against our will, God will likewise protect us. But I agree with Frank that we should not deliberately drink poison or handle snakes for the purpose of showing off because that would be an act of testing thy God, which Jesus is clearly against as per Matthew 4:6-7 and Luke 4:9-12.

[Kylerusse]

"It appears that sometime after the 4th century, a longer ending of Mark, including the resurrection appearances, had been inserted into the official Bible text"

That's absolutely not true at all whatsoever. There is much earlier evidence than the 4th century, which attest to the authenticity of the longer ending of Mark. Taitan, his work Diatessaron, which is the earliest harmonization of the Gospels, includes nearly the entirety of it in Sections 53 & 55 of the Arabic version of the Diatessaron. And that was created circa 172 AD.

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), in his work "First Apology" quotes from the ending twice. Mark 16:20 in Chapter 45, and Mark 16:14-15, in Chapter 50. Circa 150-160 AD.

And Irenaeus (130-202 AD), in his work "Against Heresies" 3.10.5. quotes from Mark 16:19. Circa 180 AD.

While the earliest extant manuscripts (which are only 2, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) do not contain them, there is indeed beyond any doubt that there is earliest attestation (at least 20-25 witnesses), and there are extant manuscripts nearly as old as them which do contain it such as Codices (A) Alexandrius, (W) Washingtonianus, (D) Bezae and (C) Ephraemi Rescriptus.

And there is good reason to suggest too that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus may have had the LE or were aware of it's presence. In Sinaiticus, careful scrutiny reveals the following: the end of Mark and beginning of Luke occur on page 3 (of the four); pages 1 and 4 contain an average of 17 lines of printed Greek text per column (there are four columns per page), just like the rest of the codex; page 2 contains an average of 15.5 lines of printed text per column (four columns); the first column of page 3 contains only twelve lines of printed text and in this way v. 8 occupies the top of the second column, the rest of which is blank (except for some designs); Luke begins at the top of column 3, which contains 16 lines of printed text while column 4 is back up to 17 lines. On page 2 the forger began to spread the letters, displacing six lines of printed text; in the first column of page 3 he got desperate and displaced five lines of printed text, just in one column! In this way he managed to get two lines of v. 8 over onto the second column, avoiding the telltale vacant column (as in B). That second column would accommodate 15 more lines of printed text, which with the other 11 make 26. Verses 9-20 occupy 23.5 such lines, so there is plenty of room for them. It really does seem that there has been foul play, and there would have been no need for it unless the first hand did in fact display the disputed verses.

And in Codex Vaticanus, there is actually a blank space where verses 9-20 would have been, making it the only time in the NT in that respective manuscripts, where there is just a blank column. It does appear 3 times in the Old Testament, but all for reasons which are quiet understandable.

And the only other Greek manuscript which lacks the LE is Miniscule 304 which has a commentary after Mark 16:8, where you couldn't see if the verses came after it or not. And that commentary was borrowed from Theophylact who regarded and cited the passage in his commentary. So, overall there are 1600+ extant Greek mss that contain either portions or the entirety of the ending. So, in summary, 99.9% of Greek witnesses contain it. Also, throw in the Old Latin Manuscripts (copied off the Old Latin versions made between 150-200 AD) with the exception of one (k), every single Vulgate manuscripts (8, 000+), every single Syriac manuscript except one, the Gothic, all of the Ethiopic, most of the Armenian and Georgian, and the Old Slavonic.

Also, in regards to there is nothing within Mark that isn't taught throughout the rest of the New Testament Scriptures, and you give the exception of handling snakes and drinking poison in verses 17-18. However, Paul himself in Acts 28:3-6 picks up a deadly snake, and it bites him on his arm, and he suffered nothing from it, and it lead the people to believe that he was some sort of god. And the early Christians also had examples. Papias, records that Justus Barrabas drank poison and was completely unharmed by it. Also, confirmed by Eusebius in "Ecclesiastical History" And Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 AD), in his word "Apostolic Traditions" cites the Greek word θανάσιμος (only time in the NT that word is used) in 32.1 when dealing with the subject of drinking poison. The Neo-Platonist Porphyry, also cited Mark 16:18 when mocking and challenging Christians to drink poison in the late 3rd century.

Conclusion, Mark 16:9-20 is of authentic Markan origin, both externally and internally speaking.

[JamesSnapp]

Frank Turek, The footnote may be technically true (depending on which version you're using -- some Bible versions have footnotes about Mark 16:9-20 that contain errors), but it is not the whole truth.  *Two* Greek manuscripts, both from the 300's, end Mark's text at the end of 16:8.  In the 100's -- well before those two manuscripts were made, the contents of Mark 16:9-20 were used by Justin Martyr, by Tatian, by the anonymous author of Epistula Apostolorum, and by bishop Irenaeus, who specifically quotes Mark 16:19 from the Gospel of Mark, in Book 3 of his composition "Against Heresies."  This second-century patristic support for Mark 16:9-20 should be on the radar, too, not just the two manuscripts from the fourth century.

[JohnFemijkeyz]

Thanks Frank for this clarification and many others. God bless you sir

[jamessheffield]

The tradition is that Mark recorded Peter's sermon. We have all been in a sermon when the preacher realizes that he has gone on to long and finishes up fast which fits Mark 16:9 -20. Blessings.

[AveChristusRex]

The snake thing was descriptive or prophetic (of future miraculous interventions of His servants), not prescriptive (all Christians), and such an event is recorded in Acts 28:1-6 ... Mark 16:17 speaks of speaking in new tongues. Of course this occurs on Pentecost.

[heels-villeshoerepairs]

Plus some of the early church fathers quoted these scriptures, so it was there! The Lord is ultimately in control of His word and if it was not meant to be there...it wouldn't be.

[samsam-nxgq]

Thanks for the explanation. Always great answer.

[JesusIzLord]

Psalms 91:13 (KJV) Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

[Noah]

Even more awesome this will be useful in my paper for school thank you

[emily-wjpz]

This is a difficult answer to accept for myself, a believer, and not at all a satisfactory answer for my husband, a nonbeliever, who just started reading the Bible and now gives it no merit. I’ve been searching for an answer to this and have yet to really find anything. It makes no sense to me to include it if it wasn’t in the early manuscripts.

[Iain]

Actually, I think some of the early church fathers quote Mark 16, 9-20 and they pre-date Sinaiticus by I am sure 160-200 years. That's why I will always read a bible the bases its text on the Textus Receptus. Namely KJV, There are a few modern translations that use the TR but I prefer the KJV to be on the safe side. ;-)

[geraldcliver]

Of course it can because it agrees with the rest of Scripture. The ONLY reason people question it is because they reject baptism as the removal press of sin, even though Acts bears it out, as well as the epistles.

[ningreingamkamei]

The word of God cannot be added nor subtract.But why did some ancient early church fathers /scribes added to the word of God.Will they not be accountable to God for what they did one day on judgement day? Will they go to hell?

[daddada]

Right dr. Frank.. also the part of "every creature"

[timothyduffy]

what is questioned is not whether or not the included thing is found elsewhere in the Bible. the questioned thing is it is a later inclusion in the Bible. that's not supposed to happen. how many other inclusions like that passage of mark exists in the Bible? how about that conversation that Mr. Christ had with the prostitute where he says let those without sin cast the first stone. that was argued by Mr. ehrman to be not of the original manuscripts, either. the Bible is ennarent, really?

[piratekitty]

God makes a promise to Christians. You will not be harmed by drinking poison. Time to put up or shut up I say. How anyone can actually base their beliefs on this book is beyond me.

[sgorgardr]

Huhn... sorry, we have earlier manuscripts. I've already TIRED of seeing maunuscripts with missing verses, that supposed to be "early". Remember: if it has chapters and verses - then it's not early enough, earliest gospels are not even in the chronological order, so can it miss some verses if verses are not even numbered? Whatever they use is too late to be called early.

[robertsparks]

The serpents and scorpion mentioned in in Mark are not referring to the animals. It's in reference to demonic entities.

[claudiaquat]

Drinking poison is taught where else in the NT?