The Longer Ending of Mark


Last Sunday, we opened the Mark 16 "can of worms." Perhaps you've stumbled across this can of worms yourself when reading the last chapter of the book of Mark. After verse 8, you will find an editor's note like the picture above. The note in the ESV says, "Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20"

In the sermon, we talked about two camps: 1) those who believe the longer version is not original to the text and 2) those who believe it is. The majority of scholars believe that what we have today was not originally in the text; however even within THAT camp, scholars are split.  Some believe that the original text ended with the abrupt verse-8 ending: "And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

Others in that camp say that the longer ending is not original but that it was added to replace the original longer ending that has been lost to time. Here is a video from Wes Huff where he argues that the longer ending of Mark is not original, but it has replaced a longer ending that has been lost to time: The Gospel of Mark is missing its ending? Let me explain...

As promised, here is a video from the first camp, those who believe the longer ending is legitimate. This is Dr. James Snapp, explaining why the longer ending IS original to the text: Defending Mark 16:9-20 From Misinformation w/James Snapp

And here is a video from Mike Winger where he walks through much of the information out there for and against the longer ending: 100+ hours of research. Is the longer ending of Mark authentic?: The Mark Series pt 69 (16:9-20). The video is long... but it's not 100hrs long.

There is yet another camp in this debate that we didn't mention on Sunday (because Sunday wasn't really about Mark 16). This third camp says that it doesn't matter whether the longer ending is original or not. It doesn't even matter if it's replacing an original longer ending. This camp says that if Mark 16:9-20 is in the canon of scripture, then the church has handed it down as holy scripture, and we should receive it as scripture.

That opens a whole other discussion on how and when we received the canon of scripture, but for now I'll say, I believe the longer ending should be in the Bible. I'm sure I'll preach from it at some point, possibly even next Easter.

________________________________________

Not to change the subject too drastically, but in the sermon I also said that I believe that the book of Mark (along with the rest of the NT) was written before 70AD. Here is another video by Wes Huff giving his reasons for thinking the same thing. This video is actually a response video from Greg Defending the Faith. Its worth a watch: Gospels Were Written How EARLY?! w/Wes Huff: CROSS Confirmed: MIND BLOWN!

I know this post involves quite a few videos. If you're itching for something to keep you busy for the next few days, I could think of worse ways to spend your time.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is your assignment as a Disciple?

The Ministry videos you may have missed

Missions week