Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was
crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the
place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. These are the words of the King James Version of Mark 16 in the bible. This would be the conclusion of the chapter in the King James Version of the bible. Now some of you might be wondering why I decided to bold and underline verses nine through twenty. It is to point out that these verses are under serious doubt of being considered original authentic scripture that was part of the New Testament canon. The only other modern translation that still has these verses would be the New King James Version of the Holy Bible. These verses are
not in found in many modern translations, leading
some of the KJV Onlyists to make the accusation that this removes the command to preach the Gospel to everybody and that without this verse, we do not have the command to evangelize. Not only is this another example of KJV Onlyism tunnel vision, but a lack of understanding why the modern translators of the Bible didnt include it into their translations of the Bible. We will go over the history of this text and give reasons as to why this probably shouldnt in the Bible. First reason to give is that this passage shouldnt belong is by looking at the manuscript evidence and the history on this passage. It is important to note something that the NET Bible Notes mark down: The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses, including two of the most respected mss (manuscripts) (1). So concerning this, the majority of manuscripts that we have today do contain the longer ending of Mark 16, but however, there is more to the story than just that. Early Church Historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, commented on this in his letter to Saint Marinus: One who athetises
that pericope would say that it is not found in all
copies of the gospel according to Mark: accurate copies end their text of the Marcan account with the words of the young man whom the women saw, and who said to them: Do not be afraid; it is Jesus the Nazarene that you are looking for, etc. , after which it adds: And when they heard this, they ran away, and said nothing to anyone, because they were frightened. That is where the text does end, in almost all copies of the gospel according to Mark. What occasionally follows in some copies, not all, would be extraneous, most particularly if it contained something contradictory to the evidence of the other evangelists. (2). So Eusebius is a good testimony to this fact, even though some church fathers quoted this passage, proving that they had the certain manuscripts that contained the additions by the early scribes. Another thing to point out in some manuscripts we find in the early manuscript accounts are that these verses were noted as not to be relied on as authentic. Bruce Metzger, theologian and bible scholar who was from Princeton Theological Seminary, commented on this by saying
the following: The last twelve verses of the
commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts ( and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document (3). One more problem that I will point out is that when the manuscript evidence continues for this passage, even some people kept trying to add to it. Codex Washingtonianus is a
lacunose manuscript that contains the four biblical
Gospels in it. Washingtonianus also contained Mark 16:9-20 as well. However, the one problem we see with this is that between verses 14 and 15, we see something added into it. James R. White makes note of this in his book on the King James Only issue: Another aspect of the problem comes from Codex W, which adds an entire paragraph to the longer ending between verses 14 and 15. Jerome not only knew of this addition, but indicated that it was popular in some places (4). So when the evidence is clear concerning the manuscript case, one has to really consider what they are reading in order to understand the text properly from actually studying and research into the texts authenticity. Secondly would be the problems concerning the content within the passages. Two passages of which involve the doctrines of the believers signs and what they are. In Mark 16:17-18, we read: And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;
they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover. These are things/signs that really arent emphasized in the other gospels or even the rest of Marks gospel (we will get more into that in the next paragraph). James White notes this by pointing out the following about the snakes and poison drinking with no ill effect: Verses 17 and 18 present yet another problem. The signs given here are said to accompany those who have believed, seemingly a promise to all who have believed. This again has no real counterpart in any other passage. Certainly Paul was bitten by a serpent and yet felt no ill effects. But even this story does not remove Christians from the natural consequences of life. Today a person can be bitten by a poisonous serpent and suffer no harm due to the snake not releasing any venom, which is not an uncommon occurrence. Possibly Paul's experience shows God's sovereignty over creation and His control of even animal life more than it shows Paul's ability to be poisoned and yet survive. These verses are reminiscent of many of the apocryphal writings that were: circulating shortly after the close of the New Testament period
(5). So we certainly know that this isnt
emphasized or repeated in any other passage of the bible and it certainly would appear to be similar to what is written in the apocryphal writings that were around after the time of the New Testament writings. Which would explain why certain Early Church Fathers quote it since these things were around during their time. Another thing to notice from James White is his comments on verse 12 when Jesus appears in a different form: Jesus is said to appear in a different form ( ) to two disciples, most probably the two on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). It must be admitted that the phrase different form could refer to the fact that the two disciples were supernaturally kept from recognizing the Lord until He had broken bread with them (Luke 24:16, 31). However, it seems unusual that this phrase would be used, as it tends to make one think that Jesus could change His form at will. With the extreme care taken by the other Gospel writers to make sure that all would know that Jesus rose physically from the grave, this seems out of place and inconsistent. (6). Indeed, this does
seem strange concerning the view of Jesus, the Son,
able to change his form. In fact, if this verse is legite, it would certainly give people a better justification to be a modalist or to assume that Jesus was a shape shifter (yes, I have met people who believe this and other passages refer to Jesus being a shape shifter). The final inconsistency and strange view of doctrine appears with verse 16 when baptism is viewed as a means of also part of salvation: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. So once again, James White goes into the details about this particular passage and why it doesnt make sense: The conjunction of baptism and belief is unusual to say the least. In no other passage does Jesus lie these things together so intricately. Now it is true that Jesus then goes on to say that the basis for condemnation is unbelief, not lack of baptism, and hence baptism does not, even on the basis of this passage, have saving power. But it still presents a phrase that is out of character with what we know of Jesus' teaching from Mark's gospel as well as the other accounts (7). The common objection by KJV Only advocates is that this word
for baptize used in Mark 16:16, baptiz (), is
referring to the concept of the spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit as mentioned by John The Baptist. However, where is the context for this? When John and the Apostles mentioned it, they would directly say something like Baptism of The Holy Spirit or any other similar wording. However, in Thayers Greek lexicon, the example that Mark 16:16 is labeled under is read as the following categories/definitions: In the N. T. it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterward by Christ's command received by Christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion (see , 3), viz., an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom The word is used absolutely, to administer the rite of ablution, to baptize (8). Baptism elsewhere in the bible is treated as a sign or ritual of one professing their new birth in Christ, but Mark 16:16 treats baptism as if it
is a requirement for salvation. This is just not true
and therefore is more reason to rid this passage. One final thing to consider is Marks vocabulary/writing style is not similar to the rest of the gospels. One thing about him ending the story with the women seeing Jesus being afraid and not telling anybody, is that this is part of his style of testing the audience. Daniel B. Wallace, a Professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, has commented on this in his video on YouTube under the Ehrman Project channel: Then you look at it (Mark 16:9-20) internally. It doesnt fit Marks vocabulary, it doesnt fit his syntax, it doesnt fit his style. So you raise a question here and that is, Did Mark end his gospel with saying the women were afraid, period? And it doesnt say that they went and told the disciples that Jesus had been raised from the dead. So you got Jesus rising from the dead in Marks gospel, but you dont have an appearance of the risen Christ to any human being. And I think, Yes! Thats exactly what Mark is trying to say. Because he wants the reader to step into the sandals of the disciples. And he
wants the reader to ask the question: If you want to
take Jesus in His glory, are you willing to accept Him in His suffering? (9). So considering what we know now about this about how Marks style is used, he is usually one to give us a good suspense and a good set of questions for us to answer at the end in how we are to approach coming to the faith. Will we take the next step once we are done reading Marks gospel after verse 8? I honestly hope so since you got done reading the other chapters of Marks gospel and have come so far. In conclusion, while this passage is certainly a good one for some to read, I personally do not believe it should be considered canonized or divinely inspired scripture that was part of the original text and I believe we have provided enough of a case to back the claim up. I do hope that nobody finds this article to be insulting to the King James Bible since I am a reader of it and I do enjoy reading from its beautiful words every time I study it. Just take this article as a means of studying and edification into this topic. Shalom Aleichem.
SOURCES AND CITATIONS
1.) Mark 16:9-20. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2016, from https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Mark 16:9-20 2.) Eusebius. (2010). Gospel problems and solutions = Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum (CPG 3470) (R. Pearse, Ed.; A. C. McCollum & C. Downer, Trans.). Ipswich: Chieftain Publishing. (P. 97) 3.) Metzger, B. A. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York: American Bible Society. 4.) White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Modern
Translations? Minneapolis, MN: Bethany
House, 1995. (p. 255) 5.) Ibid. (p. 257) 6.) Ibid. (p. 256-257) 7.) Ibid. (p. 257) 8.) Thayer, Joseph H. "Thayer's Greek: 907. (baptiz) -- to Dip, Sink." Bible Hub. Ed. Bible Hub. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2016 9.) Wallace, Daniel B. "What Are Some Passages You Interpret Differently than Dr. Ehrman? (Part 3; Mark 16:9-20)." YouTube. Ed. "The Ehrman Project" YouTube, 2011. Web. 18 July 2016.