CSB and the end of Mark’s Gospel

The Christian Standard Apologetics Study Bible online contains the following note regarding the end of the Gospel of Mark:

16:8 Manuscript evidence indicates that this Gospel probably did not originally include any of vv. 9-20. Either Mark ended his Gospel here, he never wrote an intended ending, or his original ending has been lost. The Greek syntax of v. 8 and the fact that all the other Gospels include the announcement to the apostles and subsequent resurrection appearances lead some scholars to conclude that Mark’s original ending has been lost.

The cheapo CSB printing that I have, not a study Bible, only notes that some of the earliest manuscripts do not have verses 9-20 (some is actually only two, but they are careful to avoid saying it that way. “Some” sounds more impressive). I expect most of the CSB study Bibles have this note (above). Christian people reading their Bibles have become complacent about such assertions. These kinds of assertions are standard fare, and readers likely tend to overlook them, not considering their real import.

Either...or 

There are at least three options. We really do not know what Mark wrote. We will never be sure what the canonical book of Mark should look like. The “either/or” answer to the question “what is the Bible” is clearly problematic.

Mark ended his Gospel here

Nevertheless, we do not have enough confidence in that being true, so here are two other options (just in case). There is a long ending we will put in brackets. Then there is another short ending we will put in the footnotes (even though hardly any conservative Christian thinks that is original) just to confuse the issue a bit more.

he never wrote an intended ending

Mark did not finish. What meaneth this? Was it Mark who decided what would be inscripturated and he did not finish his job? Or is it the inspiring God who writes the scriptures we have? Did Mark want to write more but God stopped him, or did God fail to inspire Mark to finish the job? If we believe in divine inspiration and inerrancy, what is this statement even supposed to mean?

his original ending has been lost

We do not have the end of Mark’s gospel. Evangelical textual critics continually harp on the fact that the inspired words of God are found somewhere in the manuscript tradition. Do they really believe that? Does Broadman & Holman have non-evangelicals writing the notes for the study Bibles? If not (I am assuming a Southern Baptist sponsored Study Bible would have evangelical study notes!), apparently some evangelical scholars do not believe that we have all the inspired words of God in the manuscript tradition, if they think original ending of Mark has been lost.

Be careful

Honestly, some of us traditionalists think that at least some of the evangelical text critics are playing word games. They try on the one side to be acceptable in their academic world and try on the other side to appease their evangelical audience. Such equivocation in the CSB on the word of God in Mark 16 helps prove that is a reasonable assumption. Equivocation on the word of God is dangerous.

Bible believing Christians need to drop a ho-hum approach to the notes that are in their study Bibles. If we do not have a ho-hum approach, we need to seriously rethink what we are accept as truth!

Be careful

When we are not being careful, we most conservative brothers and sisters allow ourselves to be carried away by the popular teachings of conservative brethren who are carried away by the popular teachings of “The Academy.”[i]

Two examples.

I have spoken and written of the inspiration of 2 Timothy 3:16 as referring directly to the Old Testament and only by extension to the New Testament.[ii] 2 Timothy 3:16 does not directly refer to the New Testament? Where did I get that? If we trace it back, it probably finds its origin in repeating conservatives who have accepted the liberal view of dating the New Testament writings as late rather than early. That is, they believe that none of the New Testament scriptures existed at the time when Paul wrote those words to Timothy. Therefore, they say, Paul could have only meant the Old Testament when he wrote of inspiration.

However, taking the Bible as our guide, we find first that Jesus himself authenticated beforehand the New Testament writings as Scripture. John 16:13 records, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” Further, Christians accepted the writings of the apostles as scripture even before the canon was closed. For example, Paul refers to Luke’s Gospel as scripture (1 Timothy 5:18; cf. Matthew 10:10), and Peter refers to all of Paul’s epistles as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), placing them on equal footing with the Old Testament.[iii]

In another place, I wrote concerning 1 John 5:7-8:

Cyprian of Carthage wrote, possibly invoking the comma…Cyprian certainly references this part of John’s first epistle, but it is not a verbatim quotation of it – thereby leaving the use of it inconclusive and open to argument.

Why be equivocal? Cyprian (circa AD 250) wrote, “of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written, ‘And these three are one’” (Treatise 1, On the Unity of the Church, Chapter 6). Where is it written? In the Bible, only in 1 John 5:7. One might argue, as does Dan Wallace, that he reads such into the text. However, Cyprian wrote – “it is written” – “of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” – not that what is written means such and such.[iv]

We need to learn to turn our backs on the assumptions of “The Academy” and learn to exercise caution following conservative scholars who are following the assumptions of “The Academy.” May the Lord help us to do so.

---

[i] The society or gaggle of distinguished scholars who aim to promote and maintain standards in their particular fields, or a body of established opinion widely accepted as authoritative in their particular fields (e.g., religion, textual criticism, etc.).

[ii] I believe the New Testament is inspired but there made the “safe” argument by extrapolation.
[iii] Peter mentions this in the natural flow of his larger thought, without needing to stop and make an argument to prove Pauls writings are scripture. This indicates his audience has an understanding that the apostolic writings are authoritative. Peter also equates the inspiration of the apostles with the prophets of the Old Testament in 2 Peter 3:2. See also John 14:26, John 15:26-27, John 16:13, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 John 4:6, Jude v. 17, and Revelation 1:1-3.
[iv] Wallace says, “and these three are one” is “the wording of which occurs in the Greek text.” However, what he refers to in his Greek text is οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν (these three agree in one), rather than ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν (these three are one). Wallace also writes that the Comma “at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380.” However, Cyprian (writing in Latin) was familiar with it written in some kind of text by AD 250, some 130 years earlier. He wrote, Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et hi tres unum sunt.