Talk:Mark 16/Archive 1

Argument from silence

"This is an argument from silence that assumes that the Gospels were written down before any of their content was shared; i.e., it does not allow for an oral tradition to have been maintained among Christians before the Gospels were recorded. There is good evidence for such an oral tradition, as many Christian leaders make reference to it in their writings."

No, it doesn't assume that: the contents of the Gospels were obviously shared and there must have been an oral tradition before any Gospel was written down. The a.f.s. suggests that if the original oral tradition contained mention of something as important as the Virgin Birth, it would have been mentioned by Mark, John, and Paul. Jacquerie27 22:09 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I changed the "Conclusion" because it was POV: in a signed essay it would be appropriate to give evidence and pronounce on it, but not here. Jacquerie27 12:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Question?

What was written first? The "Longer Ending"? Or the "Shorter Ending"? Or did the author originally ended the gospel at 16:8?

Earliest and most reliable manuscripts end at Mark 16:8. Later versions with the Longer Ending show up in the 2nd or early 3rd century. The Shorter Ending appears in a manuscript sometime after the 3rd century.

Source: Tolbert, Mary Ann. “The Gospel According to Mark” 2003, p. 1844. In New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha, general editor, Walter J. Harrelson, Abingdon Press, 2003. 173.61.38.90 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Social psychology

deleted phrase: "Social psychology teaches: It is not the objective but subjective situations that influence people." I don't think this point is really relevant to this article. I think I get what they are saying, i.e. "that this issue (which is the right ending of Mark) isn't really important, what is important is the social reasons why people have religious beliefs", but such an observation doesn't belong in an article on such a specific religious topic, but rather a more general discussion of the relationship between scholarly questions such as this, and the religious beliefs of social individuals.

POVness

This is the kind of article for which it is very difficult to be objective. Either one believes in the Marcan authorship of Mark 16:9-20, or one does not. The majority of web pages with an opinion on the issue in question seem to support this; this is not surprising, because ther people who believe in Mark 16:9-20 have more to lose than the people who do not believe in Mark 16:9-20 have to gain by not believing in it.

I will make my POV clear here: I do not believe in Mark 16:9-20; I feel the article has a bit of pro-16:9-20 POV; I want to minimize this POV while making the article one that Mark 16:9-20 supporters can live with.

(I'd like to paraphrase your remark because I find it so humourous. "I don't believe Mark 16:9-20 and I want that perspective :to be clearly dominant, yet shown in such a way that those who believe it won't object to the clear bias.")76.6.93.105 (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, an article should show no bias unless otherwise warranted (i.e. UFOs are real! vs. no scientific evidence of extraterrestrials). He was being honest about his viewpoint and noted that the article appeared to be slanted toward the pro-. He wanted to minimize the pro- POV in order to balance the article, not to make anti- "clearly dominant" as you unworthily suggest. People deserve to hear both sides. If the article was balanced in favor of the majority of Biblical scholars, it would most definitely be slanted anti-16:9-20. So, in that sense, it is a favor to simply allow the pro-16:9-20 content to be roughly equivalent to the anti-. What he said that the pro-16:9-20 people have something to lose is true--it materially affects their doctrines, while the same cannot be said for the anti-. Bias is wrong is an encyclopedia, so the pro- people need to tone things down to an honest and honorable level. The Truth does not need any assistance. --User:JohnBoyTheGreat 00:27, 22 Jul 2018 (UTC)

This article suffers from a terrible lack of perspective. The view that the original text of Mark lacked 16:9-20 is hardly controversial among reputable text critics. For example, the committee behind United Bible Societies's standard edition of the Greek text of the New Testament (from which almost all modern translations are made) ends the original text of Mark 16:8, giving their decision the highest rating of "A" which stands for "certain." The lopsided treatment this article gives to what is generally regarded as a crankish position does little to bolster Wikipedia's credibility. --scc 04:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mark 16 and Ancient World "Reading"

To my mind, this article could do with a section explaining the function(s) of the Markan ending(s). In my own personal view, vv.9-20 are an addition to Mark by a community familiar with Luke-Acts. The article also lacks an overall understanding of "reading" in the ancient world. People wouldn't have sat down by themselves and read a book; reading was performed out loud and public, not silently in private. The best estimate I have seen for ancient world literacy is around 15% - I stress best! So, if one sees Mark in this context of ancient world "reading", then 16:8 is the ideal ending - it requires interactivity from the hearer! What better way to end the "good news" (1:1) than to require a response to it?

And I agree with scc - as a whole, the article seems very much in favour of 16:9-20. For starters, where is the discussion about the vocabulary and style of 16:9-20 being out of touch with the rest of Mark? There seems plenty about the grammatical structure of v.8!

If no-one has any objections, I would like to add these ideas to the article at some point in the next 2 weeks, and also attempt to eliminate the POVness. --MHazell 03:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, no-one seemed to have any objections, so I've reworked almost the entire article. I edited out a lot of the early church fathers information - in my view, there was too much of it, and a lot of it was useless - and have also eliminated a lot of the (unneeded) Greek quotations. Detailed discussion of the different manuscripts has also gone. Reading Mark 16 as it stood, I got the feeling that far too much information about manuscripts was being dealt with in too brief a manner, and the discussion was suffering badly as a result - perhaps separate entries for each manuscript could be created or edited (like Codex Sinaiticus)? I have incorporated my ideas above and have attempted to give a fair treatment to both sides of the debate (though in scholarship, there isn't actually a debate: the longer and shorter endings are not original!). Books have also been cited, with ISBNs - and the blatantly biased external websites have disappeared. --MHazell 21:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mark 16:9

This section is not relevant to the topic, but is instead an apologetic. Unless anyone can think of a reason why it should stay, it should be deleted.

Jesus as God

At first I thought Rjcarver's edits might be original research too, but it is a fact that Jesus is regarded as God in many books of the New Testament, perhaps even Mark, and most Christians regard Jesus as God, so whether God raised Jesus or Jesus raised himself might be a distinction without a difference, and so his edits would simply follow logically from this fact and would not be original research. Roy Brumback 07:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Roy,. You reinstated these sentences:

This is not seen as a contridiction to other verses which state God raised him from the dead, as Christian writers considered Christ to be God manifest in flesh KJV, Col 2:9, John 20:28, Tit 2:13 (original Greek "our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ", etc.</ref>, quoting Jesus himself, so the change of terminology does not necessarily indicate a change of mentality of Mark, nor as a change of authorship, but can be seen as simply a statement of fact in line with what Jesus himself said would occur, without any contradiction to verse 6, as the two concepts are synonymous (see Note 2).

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that because Christians believe Jesus to be God, there is no effective distinction between God raising Jesus from the dead, and Jesus raising himself from the dead.

According to Wikipedia's policy on original research you can only include this passage in the article if you can identify a published reliable source that advances this argument (i.e. arrives at the same conclusion from the same premise). Otherwise this section falls foul, at the very least, of the prohibition on synthesizing published material to advance a position. Until you can find such a source, I'm reverting again. Thanks. Grover cleveland 07:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ said, "19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken." John 2:19-22 (NASB) The requirements for being a Christian are found in Romans 10:9 "9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved..." In the Gospel of John Jesus says He rose Himself from the dead, in Romans Paul says that God rose Jesus from the dead. This by logic would indicate that Jesus is stating He is God.Easeltine (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What gives with the NRSV?

I have a few questions. First, why is it that the explanation of the longer ending is based on a translation which relegates it to a footnote? Second, why is the NRSV used while citing Kilgallen, when Kilgallen could not have used the NRSV for his work (the NRSV was published at the same time as his commentary on Mark)? I understand wanting to maintain a NPOV and all, but come on, this is a bit over the top and marginalizes the text quite severely. Especially when one considers that the changes made in the RSV and NRSV introduce some rather serious contradictions to the Bible's text. El Cubano 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with the first question. As for the second, I simply cite what Kilgallen says in his book and I didn't use the NRSV, someone put that in later, and I'm not sure that he is using a translation for his analysis, as he's a scholar who presumably knows the ancient greek words involved. I suppose we need an analysis of the two greek wordings used, but that's beyond me as I don't know ancient greek. Anyone got a source on the words and their tenses and meaning involved here? Roy Brumback 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Popular translations always lag scholarly research. The NRSV merely reflects the scholarship of Kilgallen and others before them. 68.123.65.34 19:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My point with the first question was the NRSV include Mark 16:9-20 only as a footnote. It seems hardly neutral to use it as the basis for the explanations given in the article. Would there be opposition to changing the text quotations to something like the KJV (or at least a translation that doesn't contradict itself)? El Cubano 14:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by the NRSV "contradicting itself"? Thanks. Grover cleveland 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, in the NRSV, John 3:16 reads For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. However, in John 1:12 (again NRSV) it says But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God. So does God have only one Son? Does that make the rest of us daughters? I think the problem is that NRSV eliminates the distinction of Jesus being the begotten Son of God. The NIV, Living Bible and many other translations exhibit this problem. The KJV maintains the distinction (which is in fact quite important), as do the NKJV, ASV and even the NASB (not that I would actually recommend any of the last three). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El Cubano (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

The article you are looking for is: King-James-Only Movement. Have fun. 75.14.220.78 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While I personally hold to a KJVO view, I did point out that there are several other Bible translations which are closer to getting it right than does the NRSV. I think that the translastion that is chosen for explaining the Mark 16:9-20 text should be one that doesn't relegate it to a footnote. If it must be one that relegates the text to a footnote, it should at least be a translation that does not contradict itself. El Cubano 18:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your alleged contradiction is irrelevant to this article. 64.149.82.96 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is more than alleged. It is a fact. Of course, you can choose to deny it. Besides, that was in answer to the request for an explanation. The initial concern stands and is still valid. Why use a translation that has chosen to relegate the text in question to a footnote? El Cubano 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, why use a translation that gives no indication of the controversy over the verse?Nyttend 14:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

For a non-believer especially, El Cubano gives a humorous argument. Rather than appealing to ancient Greek versions of Mark or other sources from antiquity, El Cubano is referring to a 1611 A.D. English translation of John for authoritative reference. Wouldn't this requires a special theological argument for special status of English? From someone calling themselves "The Cuban"? (or is that a cigar brand?) The controversy of Mark 16 is in regard to the original Greek, and therefore calls for an English translation that specifically addresses the distinctions within the earliest Greek texts. While translations other than NSRV, or even in addition to NSRV, are certainly appropriate, I would say King James Version, which was based on sources no earlier than the 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus, is not. Cuvtixo (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Earliest MARK 16:9+ text is from 1100s?

"The final twelve verses, 16:9-20, are not present in two fourth-century Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.[17] The only other Greek manuscript without the ending is a twelfth century commentary on Matthew and Mark, known as "304".[18] As such, verses 9-20 are present in 99% of the Greek manuscripts,[19]"

It is confusing as to qualify all these texts as "Greek" as if that were their only significance, and the statemenst are a bit misleading. To my limited knowledge the earliest appearance of 16:9-20 in ANY language is also from 12th century. The main significance of the earlier texts being in Greek is that the original, and intervening copies are presumed to be written in Greek. This is not made clear in the above statements.

What is the Earliest appearance of the text in question? What does the percentage of Greek manuscripts-- without reference to dates, have relevance to? Cuvtixo (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Metzger's Textual Commentary lists A (Codex Alexandrinus 5th century), C (Codex Ephraemi 5th century), D (Codex Bezae 5th century), K (9th century), W (Codex Washingtonianus 5th century), X (10th century) ... The argument about "most of the Greek manuscripts" is one usually made by proponents of the Majority Text, this argument has no weight among serious scholars. 75.15.202.250 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Earliest appearance of Mark 16:9-20 are probably found in the Latin Vulgate by St. Jerome translated around 405 AD. This is a point I think that most people are missing. St. Jerome would have had earlier Greek Texts then we have today. He would not have included it in the Vulgate if it was not there. Erasmus was working with earlier Latin Vulgate copies then 1100 AD Greek Manuscripts that he had, and the Latin Vulgate included these verses. This is the reason that Erasmus includes it in his Greek Translation that people call the, "Textus Receptus." If it is in the Old Latin, and some Greek Manuscripts that St. Jerome used it should be considered authentic. The Latin Vulgate predates Codex Alexadrinus, but the oldest original Latin Vulgate we have is around 580 AD. These verses are included in the older Latin Vulgate. The ending of vs. 8 is too abrupt. The final verses seem correct to me. Hey, at least I have thought about this a lot. --Easeltine (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to respond to discussions from five or six years ago. The article text being disputed above is no longer in the article, and this is not a forum for discussing the subject generally. --RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Mess

This article is a total mess now that someone's added an essay to the bottom of it. Evercat (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So I deleted it. Evercat (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that's exactly like Mark 16:9ff. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Arguments supporting/against Mark 16

An entire section is "Arguments in support of Mark 16". Which is perfectly reasonable, but it seems strange to have that as a section but not another section next to it titled "Arguments against Mark 16" as is usually done on Wikipedia. It seems like there should be one to provide both points of view. Lord Seth (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason for this is that there is not really much debate. The Scholarly consensus section acurately describes that most scholars, conservative believers or other interested parties accept the results of textual criticism which suggest verses nine and following are not original.

In this particular article, it would be fair to state that vv9ff are not part of the New Testament, but reflect a very old precis, largely of events described in other biblical books. It is also fair to state that there is a well-known, respectable group including some academics that defends the originality of the verses -- they are colloquially known as the King James Only movement. This group deserves representation under a section like Aguments in support of verses nine and following, because they are reliable, notable and entitled to their POV. It is even possible, though unlikely, that they could be correct. Defending Mark 16:9ff is more plausible than defending the Comma Johanneum, which the same group are also committed to doing. Likewise, Mark 16 is better attested than the Pericope Adulterae, but to say so is hardly great praise.

This article needs some trimming. The same kind of material seems to run backwards and forwards all the way through it. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, passages criticizing the critics of the verses' originality are repeated near-verbatim.

Plus, the "argument for authenticity" is insufficient to rule out "a very old precis". In the language of phylogeny (see stemmatics), we'd call the open-ended version ending at Mark 16:8 plesiomorphic (it is absent from late MSS, but not from some early ones). Consequently, even if it's just a statistical resolution in the absence of even more ancient MSS, it is more probable that neither attested version of Mark 16:9(ff) is the original text, and it is quite likely that there was an original Mark 16:9ff which is not preserved in any source.

More speculatively, if you accept the authorship of the Mar Saba letter as genuine, this together with the early Church Fathers' testimony indicates that the Gospel of Mark was being heavily redacted by various Christian factions between c.150-200 AD.

The overall picture is that the long ending is something that was established prior to 200 AD to aid what would eventually become mainstream Christianity in the factional disputes of the late 2nd century AD. In how far the long ending reflects any (hypothetical) lost original ending is unclear, but the similarities to the other gospels + Acts do not reflect favorably upon this possibility. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have some interesting sources at your disposal. I may make the effort to refactor the article to remove redundant info and leave space for new, sourced material. Feel free to do this yourself, add above the Summary of manuscript evidence section, or add wherever you think most helpful. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Biased?

This article seems biased toward the "Mark 16:9-20 is authentic" side. Every argument stating it is not seems to have a counter argument, but not the other way around. Most of the professors I had in college (my major was religion) was that it wasn't originally part of Mark and came from somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.46.57 (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly it's had a once-over from the true believers; you can see in the text where it says things like, "Most scholars think that 9-20 were added at some point, however, they all made the following error so you shouldn't believe those fools [citation needed]." The error seems to be that the Long Ending is cited by earlier church fathers than many authors acknowledge, but, since the conclusion doesn't hinge on this point, it's hardly a convincing refutation. And there is a lot of baseless conjecture offered to explain away why the earliest versions of Mark 16 really do end with the short version.

Not that I mind having this information recorded, it's just that it needs to be properly contextualized as the view of a certain minority of apologists, rather than being the WP:TRUTH. <eleland/talkedits> 16:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark 16

Wouldn't be a good idea to include the three main versions of Mark 16:8f in a table (just like the Lord's Prayer)? --Witr (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Added. Feel free to improve. --Witr (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ambrose and Augustine

Hello,

I have deleted "Ambrose" because no specific reference is given to where Ambrose cites this passage. Citations that include references I have left in. For the Augustine citation, it didn't seem to me that "Mark 16:9-20 was incorporated into the text early in church history" made including Augustine necessary, since he would have been drawing on a nearly three hundred year old tradition in including Mark 16:9-20. (I would suggest that "patristic evidence" be changed to "patristic citations.")

For my other edits:

I removed "Other Gospels display evidence of having appendages not original to the text, such as Luke's infancy narrative and John's ending" because the article is primary concerned with textual criticism, not higher criticism. I thought it didn't fit with the article. Referring to the pericope adulterae, however, would be relevant.

For the footnote, "This suggested by J.K. Elliott. Daniel Wallace stated this at the 2008 Greer-Heard Counterpoint Forum, in debating Bart Ehrman." I deleted the "Daniel Wallace" sentence because I originally included that as my reference (I didn't know of any other reference to this idea). Since the original suggestion is from J.K. Elliott, I removed the Daniel Wallace sentence as unnecessary.

I deleted "Jerome, although sometimes miscited as if he rejected the passage, included it in the Vulgate (383), which he claimed he produced on the basis of old Greek manuscripts" because in Bruce Metzger's "Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament," under Mark 16:9-20, he says, "Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them." If the comment about Jerome including it because of "old Greek manuscripts" can be verified, then I will keep it in. Jerome may (I speculate) have included the pericope because of tradition.

I changed "Few doctrines of the mainline Christian denominations stand or fall on the support of the longer ending of Mark" to "No doctrines of the mainline Christian denominations stand or fall on the support of the longer ending of Mark" because the only exception to this (that I know of) is the Pentecostal groups listed below this sentence. Research into the beliefs of the major denominations will, I think, corroborate this. Hopefully this helps clarify. Do these edits sound reasonable? --Kata Markon (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Kata Markon

Fair enough about Ambrose lacking citation, although a cite request would probably be better, since I'm pretty sure its from one of the reference books since it has been here a while. Augustine is late but he knew about copies that didn't have it and chose to include it as genuine so that's relevant I think.

Jerome putting it in the Vulgate even though he said it isn't in a lot of copies is a relevant fact to the issue, so that should probably stay. Pentecostalism would probably be considered mainline, or close to it so saying no doctrine might be challenged as untrue or POV. Roy Brumback (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference from Ambrose is from the Prayer of Job and David, 4.1.4. This reference should, I think, be incorporated as a footnote. Perhaps, also, the sentence should be changed to "Mark 16:9-20 was a widespread, early tradition in the church" (thus including Augustine under that umbrella). I think it would be better to change "patristic evidence" (a pro-Mark 16:9-20 title) to "patristic citations." The article overall follows the majority view in New Testament textual criticism, which is that Mark 16:9-20 is inauthentic. Since no encyclopedia can be truly neutral, this seems to me the best approach to take, and to allow the links (which are listed at the end of the page) in support of Mark 16:9-20 to stay, so that readers can continue their own research if they are interested.

I think the Jerome quote should be changed, because there is no documentation in the article for him including it "on the basis of old Greek manuscripts." It would be better, I think, to just state Mark 16:9-20 is present in Jerome's version of the Vulgate. After all, unless that quote is correct, we don't have a clear idea of why he did include the pericope, so that statement would be somewhat speculative.

Pentecostalism is not considered, to my knowledge, a separate denomination. It is an offshoot of Baptist, Episcopalian, and Roman Catholic denominations. I can see that "no major doctrines are affected" could be seen as point-of-view, yet, I cannot find any doctrines that any mainline church believes which it solely bases on Mark 16:9-20. If this is the case, "few doctrines" would be inaccurate. --Kata Markon (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Kata Markon

Pentecostalism is a separate denomination. easeltine 12/05/10

Kata Markon, I think this is my first post to you. Clever name, by the way. You're right about Augustine. Why mention him? In fact, why mention any of these guys. The traditional ending has been there since c 150, and all these guys come after that. It's not evidence of anything. I didn't join in this battle earlier because the section is irrelevant, but now that I'm wading in, deletion is my proposal. Furthermore, the entire thing is unreferenced. Rather than have this section waste intelligent editors' time arguing over it, let's dispose of it as it deserves. As for lower and higher criticism, article guidelines instruct us to consider the topic from all angles and create connections to other topics, so let's do both. This is "Mark 16," not "Textual criticism of Mark 16." Leadwind (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, Southern Baptist snake handlers do base their distinctive demonstration of holiness on the Traditional Ending, where the snakebite clause is. There aren't any poison-drinking churches, though. I suppose those sects tend not to last long. Everything else in here is derived from stuff that's in the New Testament anyway. As long as we ignore the snake handlers, we can say "No doctrine" hinges on the content of the Traditional Ending. Various forms of Biblical inerrancy, however, may be called into question if someone added something to the Word of God, or if the Church has officially blessed it, or whatever. Leadwind (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, some of the "Oneness" Pentecostal Churches that currently practice snake handling, have told me that they have seen some ministers practicing poison-drinking. easeltine 12/05/10

"the majority view in New Testament textual criticism, which is that Mark 16:9-20 is inauthentic" emphasis mine. Careful. I don't think that critics regard it as "inauthentic," merely "not original." Christians are free to interpret whether an unoriginal ending can be authentic. The half of Christians who follow Rome are free to regard this segment as not original to the text yet authentic, and there's not much a textual critic can say about that. Leadwind (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the "patristic evidence" section, but to incorporate some of the early, referenced fathers by expanding the "Summary of manuscript evidence" section might be an option to consider.

When I referred to Mark 16:9-20 as being considered "inauthentic," my definition of the word refers something not authentically Markan, or written by Mark. If it is inauthentic, then, it is unoriginal. Whether people see truth in it is a matter unrelated to textual criticism, which is to discover the original text.

A "later addition" to the word of God does not impact innerancy. Except for some fundamentalists, believers in innerancy hold that the autographs, not the copies, are inerrant. A scribe adding Mark 16:9-20 simply added errant material. If a church has officially blessed errant material, then the church has made an error, not the original text. I think, though, that if no agreement can be reached, it might be better to remove the sentence. --Kata Markon (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Kata Markon

The Markan Appendix

The issue of the authenticity of the so-called "Markan Appendix" is a serious element in determining the reliability of the information in the Gospels generally, and this has obvious knock-on consequences. (If Dark Ages scribes felt free to add in the Markan Appendix, what else did they add in when it suited them? Or leave out?) People are more likely to go looking for information on this issue than they are to search for Mark 16 as a whole - many users might not even know that the problem lies in Chapter 16 to begin with. Should we not spin this issue off as a separate article called The Marcan Appendix, or some such name, and leave the article on Mark 16 to merely recount the scripture with a single-line cross-reference? 41.245.15.192 (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're worried people will search for Markan Appendix and not find this article just create the article Markan Appendix and make it a redirect page to here. No need to split the article.Roy Brumback (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, many thanks for the tip. Wdford (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to sections about ending

Just letting everyone know that these two edits (which are that user's only edits) were a significant change that seem to support the minority view that verses 9–20 are genuine. I'm not very knowledgeable about this subject, and the edits may be just fine, but I'm just letting people know here. —tktktk 19:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The authenticity Point Of View dominance

This article is declared as the "main article" for the section Gospel of Mark#Ending. However, the two texts differ fundamentally in their points of view. The aforementioned section presents arguments for and against the authenticity, with a certain weight to the "against"; e.g. as follows:

Irenaeus, c. 180, quoted from the long ending, specifically as part of Mark's gospel.[35] The 3rd-century theologian Origen of Alexandria quoted the resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke, and John but failed to quote anything after Mark 16:8, suggesting that his copy of Mark stopped there. Eusebius and Jerome both mention the majority of texts available to them omitted the longer ending.[36]

This article, on the other hand, seems to be more apologetic, in favour of the authenticity. As remarked repeatedly in the discussion supra, the few arguments "against" all are presented together with immediately attached denouncements, while the arguments "for" mainly (but not totally) stand alone and unchallenged.

This should make it rather hard for the readers to understand why several dominating modern Bible translations consider the authenticity dubious.

The problem is, that most who criticise this seeming POV also seem to declare themselves non-experts, and therefore would prefer that the article was fixed by people having access to the actual sources. This certainly certainly is true for me, too - I'm an interested amateur and nothing more, in this field. However, the proponents of the authenticity have not engaged in discussion. Instead, the seeming pro-authenticity apologetics has remained (almost) unchallenged in the article, while the demand for a more NPOV article is (almost) unchallenged in this talk page.

This is an impossible impasse. Hence, I'll wait a while, see if there are any answers coming to the earlier demands, or to mine. If not, I'll implement some suggestions from the talk page, and also change the text sections about Eusebios and Jerome to be more in accordance with the statements in Gospel of Mark. I'll also clarify the critical treatment in modern Bible editions. If nothing else, the reader should have a chance to understand the views that the apologists are attacking...

On the other hand, it is absolutely appropriate to add also religiously motivated defense of the authenticity. E.g., if you accept as an axiom that the KJV is divinely inspired, then the fact that the long ending is present there is an argument in itself; since (based on that axiom) this proves that God himself ultimately is its author. If there is any argument by such lines in reliable sources, a reference to this should clearly be included, somewhere. JoergenB (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Theodore of Mopsuestia's "testimony"

I know he lived a bit later, in the second half of IV century and in the first half of V century, but he has a very special recognition among the scholars.

In his Commentary on Nicene Creed, he says:

All the evangelists narrated to us His resurrection from the dead and with it they ended their respective Gospels, because they knew that it was sufficient for us to learn that He rose from the dead, moved to an immortal and immutable life and gave us the hope of participating with Him in the future good things. The blessed Luke, however, who is also the writer of a Gospel, added that He ascended into heaven so that we should know where He is after His resurrection.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodore_of_mopsuestia_nicene_02_text.htm

Here he clearly denies any other Apostles writing about Christ's ascension(which is Mark's longer ending). Can we add this to the Church Father testimony? --Otherguylb (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)