Talk:Mark 16

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark 16. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090530074143/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Council of Trent Paragraph
Under Alternate Endings, the 5th paragraph, which begins "The Council of Trent..." includes a bizarre digression that seems to be original research or opinion, and frankly does not make a lot of sense: It looks to me like someone made an argument about the Council of Trent to establish that the Catholic church considers Mk 16:9-20 canon(which should be in a different section of the article), and someone else interpolated a counterargument into that paragraph. However, the article mentions later that it was declared canonical by the Council of Trent WITH a coherent citation in an appropriate section(Theological Implications), so I propose the removal of the entire paragraph. 173.61.38.90 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "a statement clearly based on Mark 16:15" weasel words, no citation.
 * "Correction to the account in Mark 16:15 of Christ speaking of something after he was already crucified : You can see that Christ commanded that the gospel be preached in all the world as a witness - WELL BEFORE - He was crucified as evidenced in Matthew 24:14." Original research/opinion
 * "The words spoken in Matthew clearly came from a walking and physically living Christ." weasel words, irrelevant, lacks NPOV
 * "Mark 16:9-20, as many people know or can learn with minimal study, are NOT part of the original writings and were "added" by mankind many decades later." lacks NPOV, bizarre comment in an article about this exact issue, weasel words.
 * "Having said that, use caution and wisdom when reading this "added" conjecture." This is just advice and is wholly inappropriate in an encyclopedia.
 * "Since Mark 16:9-20 is part of the Gospel of Mark in the Vulgate, and the passage has been routinely read in the churches since ancient times (as demonstrated by its use by Ambrose, Augustine, Peter Chrysologus, Severus of Antioch, Leo, etc.), the Council's decree affirms the canonical status of the passage."

Looks like someone fixed the issues in the paragraph, so I'm no longer proposing its removal.173.61.38.90 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

delete section 13.1
Section 13.1 is completely useless and so should be deleted. It simply restates what the other says earlier -- that scholars think Mark 16:9-20 is added, but just in a much longer space. It also has some fringe views about the ending being authentic from Craig Evans. Totally useless, hard to read, redundant.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Verse 8 and the short ending contradict each other
verse 8 and the shorter ending contradict each other; why? Any scholarly sources on that? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to see. Still, any sources specific on the shorter ending? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read about the longer ending but very little about the shorter. Sorry.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've found some; enough for this page. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - by "contradict," do you mean that the short version says that the women didn't tell the disciples while the long version says Mary Magdalene told them? Just want to be sure we are thinking of the same thing - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I mean that the women are told to tell the disciples, but they don't; why? It's such an odd ending; the last sentence looks almost like an interpolation. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is indeed an odd ending - the women are told to inform the disciples of a meeting in Galilee, but don't. It seems to have some knowledge of the tradition reflected in Matthew, in which there is a meeting, so presumably Mark did know of this, but why he stopped at that point God only knows.PiCo (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Which Bible-translation should we link to?
this may have been discussed before in length, I don't know; what Bible-tralsation should be preferred when we use. It seems to me that the New Revised Standard Version is to be preferred, being most up-t-date, and agreed on by a broad ranhe of denominations. The King James is quite old, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Any translation would be better than the King James Version. It is famous for its mistranslations:
 * "The King James version contains several mistranslations; especially in the Old Testament where the knowledge of Hebrew and cognate languages was uncertain at the time. Most of these are minor and do not significantly change the meaning compared to the source material. Among the most commonly cited errors is in the Hebrew of Job and Deuteronomy, where  רֶאֵם "Re'em" with the probable meaning of "wild-ox, aurochs", is translated in the KJV as "unicorn"; following in this the Vulgate unicornis and several medieval rabbinic commentators. The translators of the KJV note the alternative rendering, "rhinocerots" [sic] in the margin at Isaiah 34:7. On a similar note Martin Luther's German translation had also relied on the Vulgate Latin on this point, consistently translating  רֶאֵם using the German word for unicorn, "Einhorn."   Otherwise, the translators on several occasions mistakenly interpreted a Hebrew descriptive phrase as a proper name (or vice versa); as at 2 Samuel 1:18 where 'the Book of Jasher'  סֵפֶר הַיׇּשׇׁר  properly refers not to a work by an author of that name, but should rather be rendered as "the Book of the Upright."" Dimadick (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not about Bible version debate, but for a more practical reason: using Wikisource instead of relying on external links. Interwiki links are generally faster to access and don't have the "link mark" at the end of the linked texts. I don't object the linking to an appropriate Bible version when mentioned in a particular text source. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I see; thanks17:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)