StillSeekingGod

Mark 16:9-19 (Niv)

26 posts in this topic

Hello

 

I just finished the gospel of Mark and in a note in my Bible it said that 16:9-19 wasn't there in the earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses. It also seems to be in a completely different style than the rest of Mark, at least in my opinion. Also, are there any other references in the Bible to people picking up snakes and not being poisoned because that all seems to be a little out of the blue... (This is the first full gospel I've read, that is why I don't know)

 

I was just wondering what others find of the last verses of Mark and what they see as the value of this bit of text, what they read into it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the consensus of most biblical scholars is that another writer added 16:9-19 to Mark.

 

As for snakes, Moses???? But I would think many do not accept these verses as literal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the consensus of most biblical scholars is that another writer added 16:9-19 to Mark.

 

As for snakes, Moses???? But I would think many do not accept these verses as literal.

 

Is there a reason you use all those question marks?

 

Well, yes, probably another writer but it just seems like that writer made Jesus into someone else all together. Is there anything known about the writer? Or not at all? To your knowledge, I mean.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since last night (when we finished Mark) I did a bit of reading up. The general consensus is that 16:9 onwards was added on because the original ending of Mark is a bit doom and gloom and does not explain how the spread of Christianity came about....again I'm not sure about the snakes but maybe someone else could help explain that?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel picking up snakes is not literal, but referring to people who are afraid of Satan or anything they feel will dirty their soul, but the soul is not affected by dirty hands because it is beyond the material realm. It seems many Christians are paralyzed because they give too much power to Satan and judgments that they think are against God, which says nothing about the judgments but more about them, their fears, weaknesses and lack of spiritual relationship with the soul. I feel it is saying the spirit or God is the strongest force the collective consciousness that repels any negative unit consciousness so don't be afraid of anything in any realm if you are right with your true self.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel picking up snakes is not literal, but referring to people who are afraid of Satan or anything they feel will dirty their soul, but the soul is not affected by dirty hands because it is beyond the material realm. It seems many Christians are paralyzed because they give too much power to Satan and judgments that they think are against God, which says nothing about the judgments but more about them, their fears, weaknesses and lack of spiritual relationship with the soul. I feel it is saying the spirit or God is the strongest force the collective consciousness that repels any negative unit consciousness so don't be afraid of anything in any realm if you are right with your true self.

 

I am not native English speaker and that is a bit too much for me. Simple English, please? I just really don't understand what you mean.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have to be afraid of anything if we are right with everything, which is God because God is everything.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That part of Mark does seem to be different. I don't think anyone has a satisfactory explanation of how it got there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is there a reason you use all those question marks?

 

Well, yes, probably another writer but it just seems like that writer made Jesus into someone else all together. Is there anything known about the writer? Or not at all? To your knowledge, I mean.

 

Sorry, did not intend to mislead. The question marks are an indication that I think snakes were in the Moses story, but other than that I don't know.

 

Since last night (when we finished Mark) I did a bit of reading up. The general consensus is that 16:9 onwards was added on because the original ending of Mark is a bit doom and gloom and does not explain how the spread of Christianity came about....again I'm not sure about the snakes but maybe someone else could help explain that?

Lisa,

 

Not sure if it was doom and gloom but that it did not go into the appearances.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since last night (when we finished Mark) I did a bit of reading up. The general consensus is that 16:9 onwards was added on because the original ending of Mark is a bit doom and gloom and does not explain how the spread of Christianity came about....again I'm not sure about the snakes but maybe someone else could help explain that?

No original or even close to original Gospels exist. Usually they were on book (codex) form and eventually became unbound.

 

Pure speculation, but Mark does come to an unexpectedly abrupt ending if one ignores the Markan addition (16:9 onward). My guess is someone found part of another book and put the two together in error.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

During my scripture reading days Mark was always a favorite. The little parables of the kingdom were living words. Now, considering the questions posed here, I wonder just what it means to say that the ending we now have is not "authentic" and was added "later".

 

"Authentic" compared to exactly what?

Edited by tariki
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During my scripture reading days Mark was always a favorite. The little parables of the kingdom were living words. Now, considering the questions posed here, I wonder just what it means to say that the ending we now have is not "authentic" and was added "later".

 

"Authentic" compared to exactly what?

 

I guess authentic as in the ending is from the same writer, and also if it is not from Mark, which it really doesn't seem to be, then how much value is there in the content of the text.

I just found it quite... shocking, sort of a whiplash because Jesus suddenly, in those verses, appears to become someone completely different. It was just very strange to me..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess authentic as in the ending is from the same writer, and also if it is not from Mark, which it really doesn't seem to be, then how much value is there in the content of the text.

I just found it quite... shocking, sort of a whiplash because Jesus suddenly, in those verses, appears to become someone completely different. It was just very strange to me..

The Gospels are all "according to" and not "authored by". Someone wrote down Mark's verbal history. It's very possible that there was more than one secretary recording Mark's story.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.......

then how much value is there in the content of the text.....

 

The question of "value" is for me the interesting one. Is the "value" in the text itself, in ourselves, or somewhere in between?

 

Again, "authentic" compared to exactly what?

 

Please don't mind me.......as said elsewhere, I'm harmless.

 

Happy Face.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything known about the writer? Or not at all? To your knowledge, I mean.

The short answer is no. We know nothing about the author whatsoever. Was it really Mark? Was it somebody who knew Mark? Was it a pseudo graphical author pretending to be Mark? Who knows.

 

Mark is an interesting Gospel in that as the widely recognised actual first gospel, the author does not promote a physically resurrected Jesus. Perhaps the earliest Christians didn't believe in a physically resurrected Jesus?

 

The ending currently in the bible is certainly not in our earliest known versions of the bible.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gospels are all "according to" and not "authored by". Someone wrote down Mark's verbal history. It's very possible that there was more than one secretary recording Mark's story.

 

I don't really seem to agree. It could be possible, but the style in which is was written seems to be quite the same throughout the gospel until you get to the 'added' ending and there it seems like someone with a completely different view of Christ wrote it. So... I know it is according to, I recognise that but like I said, it seems to have had one writer that was deemed quite credible considering it ended up in the Bible, and then the added end is like someone decided to write a bit of fan fiction.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of "value" is for me the interesting one. Is the "value" in the text itself, in ourselves, or somewhere in between?

 

Again, "authentic" compared to exactly what?

 

Please don't mind me.......as said elsewhere, I'm harmless.

 

Happy Face.

 

Well, I feel as though there must be value in the text, cause if it was in ourselves we wouldn't need scriptures... but then we wouldn't know of Christ and what he ministered and stood for. It might be somewhere in between, but I do think that there is value in scripture.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark is an interesting Gospel in that as the widely recognised actual first gospel, the author does not promote a physically resurrected Jesus. Perhaps the earliest Christians didn't believe in a physically resurrected Jesus?

 

Well, I don't really believe in a physical resurrection which is why I quite liked the gospel of Mark.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really seem to agree. It could be possible, but the style in which is was written seems to be quite the same throughout the gospel until you get to the 'added' ending and there it seems like someone with a completely different view of Christ wrote it. So... I know it is according to, I recognise that but like I said, it seems to have had one writer that was deemed quite credible considering it ended up in the Bible, and then the added end is like someone decided to write a bit of fan fiction.

Your hypothesis is testable and someone has certainly done it. One can fairly easily analyze the word usage in the original Greek and see how both parts compare.

 

There are some commentaries online where you can read an academic opinion. It's a good practice to read a couple after finishing a book. There is a lot of understanding that you miss if you don't.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, I don't really believe in a physical resurrection which is why I quite liked the gospel of Mark.

 

There is physical resuscitation, which suggests coming back to this life but resurrection is not that. The ‘physical appearances’ were a later theological development but the ‘experience’ (and subsequent belief) that Jesus was ‘Risen’ and glorified by the Father was in the ‘earliest’ moments of the Christian movement; it began the Christian movement.
 This fact (the fact being the first Christians ‘experience) would be interesting to consider at some point in the study of Christianity.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your hypothesis is testable and someone has certainly done it. One can fairly easily analyze the word usage in the original Greek and see how both parts compare.

There are some commentaries online where you can read an academic opinion. It's a good practice to read a couple after finishing a book. There is a lot of understanding that you miss if you don't.

I am planning to read all gospels first and form my own opinions in dialogue with my partner and on here, before I do that but I am planning on it. I've only been reading for a week or two. I'm a Christian baby, really.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

thormas

I don't really understand what you're trying to say... Could you explain it differently?

Edited by StillSeekingGod
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm a Christian baby, really.

Sometimes that can be a good thing.

 

Just to add, I once read a book that was a series of insights and understandings of the NT by new Third World Christians. They did not see themselves as "Protestants" or "Catholics", or as needing to cut their interpretations of the word to fit the cloth of any particular theology. In that way they had every chance of further opening to grace and growing in Christ.

Edited by tariki
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am planning to read all gospels first and form my own opinions in dialogue with my partner and on here, before I do that but I am planning on it. I've only been reading for a week or two. I'm a Christian baby, really.

A good plan, but better to discuss each gospel seperately. It is easy to get them confused when the same stories are told slightly differently by different authors or even miss things entirely.

 

Making an outline of Mark before you move on will help too, especially since you are reading all four gospels before reading the commentaries. Dividing each book into manageable pieces is a huge help. The chapter and verse organization was added in Merrye Olde England and is not particularly helpful.

 

Developing good questions is more important than looking for answers. Write your questions down as they occur so you can go back to them.

 

I assume you are reading Matthew next?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thormas

I don't really understand what you're trying to say... Could you explain it differently?

 

Not sure this will be any better:

 

There is a difference between resuscitation and resurrection, the former is physical, the latter is not (see Paul the first Christian writer on the spiritual body of Jesus). Another way to put it is the resuscitated return to this life, the resurrected do not (or not for long). So, I don't know what you mean by or what physical resurrection is. In the later gospels, the 'appearances’ become more and more physical. This was a later theological development but it is an interesting question to ask if there were physical appearances (which would not be necessary for one who is resurrected and glorified by god). In short, we don't know what happened to Jesus, that is beyond historical study and not a 'fact of history' simply because history is what happens prior to death (not after it). What is historical is that the disciples of Jesus tell and write of their experience: that Jesus is resurrected, glorified by God and 'with' God. Their 'experience' occurs in the ‘earliest’ moments of the Christian movement; it began the Christian movement.

 

What was that experience? Or, what were they trying to say about their experience? That, for me, is an intriguing question and is interesting to consider.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now