How come there're two endings for Gospel of Mark? Which one is the real one?

ini mini myni mo, catch a tiger by his toe... ;-)

I remember hearing somewhere the latter was added by one of his disciples much later from when the original text was written.

But that is a good question you asked, Simeon.

uc

Whose diciple? Mark's?
So, it's ok to add or take away some words and verses from the Scripture.
What about Rev 22:18-19 that forbid us to add or take away some words from the revelation itself?

There are two endings to John, too. ;o) Also, there's a point in one of Paul's letters where the scribe takes a moment to send personal greetings to his own friends in the particular city. The additions are no less inspired (if mundane, in the one case) for being additions - and remember that when those additions were made, nobody thought of the Gospels as Scripture. At most, they were just particularly good accounts of Christ's life, and at least two people were inspired to add on to those accounts.

IIRC, two important manuscripts end Mark's Gospel with verse 16:8, and a few have a shorter ending:

But a significant majority of the manuscripts have the longer ending. The longer ending is used in the Roman Mass. Because the Vulgate includes the longer ending, the Council of Trent accepted the longer ending as a canonical part of the Gospel (your take on that will probably depend on whether or not you consider Trent to have been an ecumenical council).

Jason

Simeon

Apocalypse 22-18,19 has been historically understood to refer exclusively to the Book of the Apocalypse. Many Evangelical Protestants apply it to the entire Bible however.

Simeon,
Exactly as Lawrence pointed out, that verse applies strictly to the Book of Revelation.

We in america tend to be myopic and look through twentieth century glasses for out understanding of scripture. Remember there is not ONE book of the Bible Gr.(biblos) but a collection of books.
The Book starts out with the idea "Blessed is he who reads and he who hears the words of this prophecy, and keep the things written therein; for the time is at hand."
Not everyone in the ancient Church enjoyed our modern availabily of a person copy or even several copies of Sacred Scripture.

The reader was the "official reader" of the assembly.
Look closely at the text again.
"I warn everyone who hears the words of prophecy of THIS book;"

Who decides which is correct. As always it is the Ecclesia guided by the Holy Spirit who prays, reflects, studies and rules on these matters.

Stephanos I

Hello!

The real ending of the Gospel of Mark is the verse concerning the women that had seen the Angel, telling them about the resurrection of Jesus, but sad nothing anybody because, as it is written, “they were afraid”. The most ancient manuscripts stand precisely for this ending. And it seems to be strange for latest rewriters who were, obviously, dissatisfied by these prosaic final words of Mark. It seemed to them that his short phrase was grammatically unfinished. So they simply “continued” it making the ending bigger and more informative. Today in various manuscripts we have two latest endings added to the mentioned above actual final verse of the Gospel. One of these two afterthoughts is accepted in the modern editions of the Bible. Another one is still bigger and chaotically compiled of a couple of miracles borrowed from the other Gospels.

You can ask why Mark, or somebody else hidden behind this name, left his text so unfinished. Actually, the last words of the Angel addressed to the women are informative enough. They sufficiently contain all the essential points of the Christian Good News on the resurrected Christ. “Hi is risen!” The undue grammatical shortness also is not a great problem to thing of. This Apostle, as it is clear from his stile, was not the best at Greek. He just did not care of grammatical correctness and beauty of the language. At last, such a short ending harmonically corresponds to the initial words of the Gospel of Mark. They read “This is the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. So the complete text itself is just the “beginning” of the Christ Good News that is getting around all over the World. It seemed enough for the author to lead the story up to the resurrection and without written continuation leave his readers in the newly emerged Christian reality, the reality of the Gospel dispensation and the temporary invisible presence of the Son of Man.

Valerius

Gosh! I accidentally misspelled at least two phrases “He is risen” and “to think of”. Sorry…

Valerius

Throughout nearly all the history of the Church, the longer ending of Mark's Gospel was accepted. Not only is it found in Jerome's Latin Vulgate (which used as its source Greek manuscripts older than any now extant), but it is found in the majority of manuscripts and so, of course, in the Received/Byzantine text which is still supposed to be the one accepted by Eastern Christians. The new critical text of the NT, starting basically with Westcott & Hort and continuing through Nestle & Aland is based on a few Alexandrian manuscripts (3 basically), which they consider "the oldest and best" on the basis of a theory which I blieve to be extremely faulty. The subject cannot be covered in a few words or pages, but has been written about exhaustively.

Porter (actual name)

I agree with Porter. I find it laughable how today's so-called scholars think they are so much wiser than the Church Fathers. They think they have it so figured out, but in reality their theories are on very thin ice; pop theory's, that's all they are and they come and they go. I think it is much wiser to stick to the faith and the text used by the far majority of Church Fathers throughout the centuries. So much of what goes for Biblical Scholarship today is nothing but a constant denial and tearing down of the Faith passed on from our Fathers. They can have it (i.e. their "knowledge" falsely so-called). The wheel (read Faith or Tradition) is just fine and does not need to be re-created.

and on that happy note, I'll leave you.
Ghazar

I asked those question, because some other faith who reject the deity of Jesus and the Trinity often use this matter. They want to show us that the Trinity doctrine is fraud and paganic, because the concept of Father, Son and Holy Spirit was a later addition.

Wow! I listenned to a cassette tape by Fr. Thomas Hopko today on the Holy Trinity. I believe I must have ordered it from Conciliar Press.

He is a stunning preacher. I could not believe how in depth he went into scripture to sort out and substantiate the doctrine of the Trinity.

Has anyone else heard this tape? Are all his talks as good as this one?

I think those who seek to confound the Trinitarian doctrine better get on their horses and ride out of town!

Glory to you, O Lord, Glory to you!

Dear SSV,

Fr. Thomas Hopko is a stunning preacher indeed. His work has certainly impacted my life in great ways. I actually used to go to Bible Studies with (I think) his Father-in-law in a OCA parish, who introduced me to Fr. Hopko's tapes.

I don't think I've heard the one you've mentioned but his all-time classic is "The Word of the Cross." His tape series "Sin: Primordial, Personal and Generational" is good for those interested in lectures on the Eastern concept of Sin, Original and otherwise. I like his lecture on the Dynamics of Religion in America. But my personal favorite is his series of lectures on "The Nicene Creed in the Orthodox Church." The first five or six tapes tackle the subject of the Holy Trinity and are simply amazing. The sad thing is, I have a bootleg of these and have never been able to find an original for purchase. I think there are eight tapes (which I have in my work truck right now for listening). I can go over these a hundred times and still get more out of them. He also has an excellent Catechism on-line at:

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/

Glad you enjoyed his talks,
Ghazar

I am the person that duplicates those tapes at SVS. Anything by Hopko on tape is worth it. You can order online at www.svspress.com

anastasios