100+ hours of research. Is the longer ending of Mark authentic?: The Mark Series pt 69 (16:9-20)
Published at : August 28, 2021
Today's the day. I've spent weeks trying to dig deep on the debate of whether the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark are actually part of the Gospel of Mark.
Video Map with Time Stamps:
0:00 - Introduction
1. 3:45 Mike admits his bias
2. 7:39 Why this research was so hard
3. 10:04 Mike’s basic conclusions on the passage
4. 11:21 Here begins the external evidence analysis
5. 16:40 Codex Sinaiticus
6. 22:38 Codex Vaticanus
7. 33:55 How important are those 2 manuscripts really?
8. 36:18 Codex 304; a Byzantine MS that ends at vs. 8
9. 40:40 Other Greek manuscripts that weigh in on this
10. 52:00 Syriac translations
11. 54:30 Armenian translations
12. 55:49 Georgian translations
13. 56:42 Sahidic translations
14. 58:03 Latin translations
15. 1:00:13 Lectionary systems
16. 1:01:38 What church fathers have to say
17. 1:02:35 Irenaeus (c. 180)
18. 1:04:01 Tatian (c. 170)
19. 1:04:38 Eusebius (mid 300s)
20. 1:10:45 Jerome (early 400s)
21. 1:16:03 Victor of Antioch (5th or 6th century)
22. 1:17:22 Clement of Alexandria
23. 1:18:04 Origen
24. 1:19:11 1st Clement (c. 95)
25. 1:22:00 My thoughts on Lunn and Snapp
26. 1:22:34 Conclusion on the church fathers
27. 1:24:32 What is the “internal evidence”?
28. 1:28:58 How vs. 9 doesn’t fit with vs. 8
29. 1:33:16 Two common bad examples of internal evidence
30. 1:36:45 Kai is not like Mark
31. 1:41:29 The historical present
32. 1:43:06 The demonstrative pronoun
33. 1:44:46 Verbs for perception
34. 1:45:57 The strongest piece of internal evidence
35. 1:50:10 21 Markisms
36. 1:55:00 The million-dollar question of scribal motives
37. 2:03:55 Why I still want the longer ending in my Bible
38. 2:06:46 Lingering issues
This is a book where 4 scholars each build a case for their different views on the ending of Mark. It’s a good introduction into the issues of the debate even if no one scholar has the space to fully flesh out their case. “Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views” https://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Ending-Mark-Daniel-Wallace-ebook/dp/B004OR17WK/
Nicholas Lunn recently wrote a book offering a very detailed case that the longer ending always part of Mark’s Gospel. At first I found Lunn’s book to be really helpful in challenging the scholarly majority. But after spending a lot of time with it I’ve come to think that his work causes more confusion than clarity on the topic. Uneven standards in how evidence is handled make his work difficult to read without leading to important misimpressions. “The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20” https://www.amazon.com/Original-Ending-Mark-Case-Authenticity-ebook/dp/B00OU6OB78/
Larry Hurtado offered three short reviews of Lunn’s book, all three at this link. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/search/label/Nicholas%20P.%20Lunn
James Snapp’s theory is that Mark wrote the longer ending but it was originally not part of the Gospel of Mark. It was taken from some other work from Mark and then added on to the end of the Gospel of Mark. He offers 5 different theories for why it is missing from some manuscripts. I respect Snapp’s tenacity but I think his logic has regular logical problems. I mean no insult by this, I just want you to be prepared to think very carefully about what he says. His book, “Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20”, is free here. https://www.academia.edu/12545835/Authentic_The_Case_for_Mark_16_9_20
The most helpful resource I found for dealing with the internal evidence in the longer ending of Mark is this article from Travis Williams. https://www.academia.edu/1444542/Bringing_Method_to_the_Madness_Examining_the_Style_of_the_Longer_Ending_of_Mark
My verse by verse study of the longer ending of Mark is here. It’s long, methodical and shows that the passage doesn’t pose theological problems, even if it wasn’t written by Mark. https://youtu.be/zA6s9O4o5Uo
For the 12th century Greek Codex 304, which is Byzantine in nature and ends Mark at 16:8, see the two links following; and you’ll need them because Snapp and Lunn have bad info on this. The text is viewable here. https://mr-mark16.sib.swiss/show?id=R0EzMDQ=
A helpful commentary, from Dr. Mina Monier, on the text and its significance can be found here. https://mark16-etalk.sib.swiss/index.php?dir=Mark16_MM_1#0
The MARK16 Project is awesome. Their website has a lot of helpful stuff and I expect a lot more in years to come. https://mark16.sib.swiss/
Randall Booth’s paper on Mark’s use of “palin” https://www.silpacific.org/resources/archives/61477
For a full list of Mark’s use of the historical present and how other Gospels tend not to, see pages 144-148 in this old book, “Horae Synopticae” https://archive.org/details/1909horaesynopt00hawkuoft/page/144/mode/2up
This is part 69 of the Mark Series, going verse by verse through the Gospel of Mark.
See the WHOLE Gospel of Mark playlist here. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuGenHwUdeiQ5M-uj5XW4sF
My website https://BibleThinker.org
Video Map with Time Stamps:
0:00 - Introduction
1. 3:45 Mike admits his bias
2. 7:39 Why this research was so hard
3. 10:04 Mike’s basic conclusions on the passage
4. 11:21 Here begins the external evidence analysis
5. 16:40 Codex Sinaiticus
6. 22:38 Codex Vaticanus
7. 33:55 How important are those 2 manuscripts really?
8. 36:18 Codex 304; a Byzantine MS that ends at vs. 8
9. 40:40 Other Greek manuscripts that weigh in on this
10. 52:00 Syriac translations
11. 54:30 Armenian translations
12. 55:49 Georgian translations
13. 56:42 Sahidic translations
14. 58:03 Latin translations
15. 1:00:13 Lectionary systems
16. 1:01:38 What church fathers have to say
17. 1:02:35 Irenaeus (c. 180)
18. 1:04:01 Tatian (c. 170)
19. 1:04:38 Eusebius (mid 300s)
20. 1:10:45 Jerome (early 400s)
21. 1:16:03 Victor of Antioch (5th or 6th century)
22. 1:17:22 Clement of Alexandria
23. 1:18:04 Origen
24. 1:19:11 1st Clement (c. 95)
25. 1:22:00 My thoughts on Lunn and Snapp
26. 1:22:34 Conclusion on the church fathers
27. 1:24:32 What is the “internal evidence”?
28. 1:28:58 How vs. 9 doesn’t fit with vs. 8
29. 1:33:16 Two common bad examples of internal evidence
30. 1:36:45 Kai is not like Mark
31. 1:41:29 The historical present
32. 1:43:06 The demonstrative pronoun
33. 1:44:46 Verbs for perception
34. 1:45:57 The strongest piece of internal evidence
35. 1:50:10 21 Markisms
36. 1:55:00 The million-dollar question of scribal motives
37. 2:03:55 Why I still want the longer ending in my Bible
38. 2:06:46 Lingering issues
This is a book where 4 scholars each build a case for their different views on the ending of Mark. It’s a good introduction into the issues of the debate even if no one scholar has the space to fully flesh out their case. “Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views” https://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Ending-Mark-Daniel-Wallace-ebook/dp/B004OR17WK/
Nicholas Lunn recently wrote a book offering a very detailed case that the longer ending always part of Mark’s Gospel. At first I found Lunn’s book to be really helpful in challenging the scholarly majority. But after spending a lot of time with it I’ve come to think that his work causes more confusion than clarity on the topic. Uneven standards in how evidence is handled make his work difficult to read without leading to important misimpressions. “The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20” https://www.amazon.com/Original-Ending-Mark-Case-Authenticity-ebook/dp/B00OU6OB78/
Larry Hurtado offered three short reviews of Lunn’s book, all three at this link. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/search/label/Nicholas%20P.%20Lunn
James Snapp’s theory is that Mark wrote the longer ending but it was originally not part of the Gospel of Mark. It was taken from some other work from Mark and then added on to the end of the Gospel of Mark. He offers 5 different theories for why it is missing from some manuscripts. I respect Snapp’s tenacity but I think his logic has regular logical problems. I mean no insult by this, I just want you to be prepared to think very carefully about what he says. His book, “Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20”, is free here. https://www.academia.edu/12545835/Authentic_The_Case_for_Mark_16_9_20
The most helpful resource I found for dealing with the internal evidence in the longer ending of Mark is this article from Travis Williams. https://www.academia.edu/1444542/Bringing_Method_to_the_Madness_Examining_the_Style_of_the_Longer_Ending_of_Mark
My verse by verse study of the longer ending of Mark is here. It’s long, methodical and shows that the passage doesn’t pose theological problems, even if it wasn’t written by Mark. https://youtu.be/zA6s9O4o5Uo
For the 12th century Greek Codex 304, which is Byzantine in nature and ends Mark at 16:8, see the two links following; and you’ll need them because Snapp and Lunn have bad info on this. The text is viewable here. https://mr-mark16.sib.swiss/show?id=R0EzMDQ=
A helpful commentary, from Dr. Mina Monier, on the text and its significance can be found here. https://mark16-etalk.sib.swiss/index.php?dir=Mark16_MM_1#0
The MARK16 Project is awesome. Their website has a lot of helpful stuff and I expect a lot more in years to come. https://mark16.sib.swiss/
Randall Booth’s paper on Mark’s use of “palin” https://www.silpacific.org/resources/archives/61477
For a full list of Mark’s use of the historical present and how other Gospels tend not to, see pages 144-148 in this old book, “Horae Synopticae” https://archive.org/details/1909horaesynopt00hawkuoft/page/144/mode/2up
This is part 69 of the Mark Series, going verse by verse through the Gospel of Mark.
See the WHOLE Gospel of Mark playlist here. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuGenHwUdeiQ5M-uj5XW4sF
My website https://BibleThinker.org
women at the empty tombwomen witnessesthe mark series