Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Mark

[Deadpan]

The subject is my question: How do you interpret Mark 16:18?

[jimwalton]

Mark 16.9-20 is widely recognized as not being part of the original gospel, but added later, and therefore a spurious addition. There is widespread textual evidence that those verses are not authentic. Therefore there is little or no reason to consider them as part of Christian doctrine or practice. In other words, we don't interpret them, we ignore them.

[Oxygen]

I wonder why it continues to be part of the bible then? Furthermore, what other verses in the bible don't belong to the "original text," however that is defined.

[jimwalton]

Most Bibles now have markings at Mark 16, starting at verse 9, that say, "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses to not have Mark. 16.9-20," and there's a bit space—verses 9-20 are set off from the rest.

The only other text that is like that is John 8.1-11. Again, my Bible says "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses to not have John 7.53-8.11." So these things are well known, marked out in some Bibles, and recognized by a vast majority that they are not authentic.

[Oxygen]

Well I'm glad we have perfect knowledge of what is and isn't authentic but still included in the bible. That doesn't cast further doubt on an already dubious book. Combine that with highly questionable authorship, and the editting of the bible by councils of fallible men, and you have the makings of a true holy book to run the world with.

[jimwalton]

I sense all your sarcasm and skepticism, but we can try to have a civilized discussion anyway. You're quite dismissive of natural processes and human participation with God, but for no particularly justifiable reason. The reformed epistemological position is that we can gain knowledge by the natural processes of investigation and reason, but that the Holy Spirit is also able to inform us of truth that can't otherwise be attained. That at least addresses the editing of the Bible by fallible men, unless, of course, they are being informed by a spiritual presence to guide them into truth. In that case, their fallibility isn't a detrimental factor.

You obviously also have a presupposition, and most likely even also a bias, assuming the Bible is dubious. That's evidence worthy of discussion, should you desire to tackle that. I've done quite a bit of research on Biblical authorship and the development of the canon, and that research has convinced me of quite a strong case for Biblical authority, not dubiety. The case for Biblical authorship and editing don't make the Bible dubious by any length. It sounds as if you are making unjustifiable conclusions based on inadequate research. If you'd like to discuss these things rather than just throw out sardonic barbs, let me know.

[Oxygen]

You're base premise, that there is this god and a holy spirit to gloss over the fallibility of man, has yet to be demonstrated.

[jimwalton]

Actually, it's been demonstrated over and over to be both logical and reasonable. I didn't bring it up because it wasn't pertinent to the discussion at hand, which is "How do you interpret Mark 16:18?" Now, if you want to discuss the rationality of theism, that's a possible discussion, but a different one.