KJV ONLY Claim #2: No Mark

16:9-20, No Evangelism
By Christian Anarchist

And when the sabbath was past, Mary

Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and
Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might
come and anoint him. And very early in the morning
the first day of the week, they came unto the
sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said
among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone
from the door of the sepulchre? And when they
looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for
it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre,
they saw a young man sitting on the right side,
clothed in a long white garment; and they were
affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not
affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was

crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the

place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his
disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into
Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
And they went out quickly, and fled from the
sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed:
neither said they any thing to any man; for they
were afraid. Now when Jesus was risen early the
first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary
Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
And she went and told them that had been with
him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when
they had heard that he was alive, and had been
seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in
another form unto two of them, as they walked,
and went into the country. And they went and told
it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat
at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief
and hardness of heart, because they believed not
them which had seen him after he was risen. And
he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gospel to every creature. He that

believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that

believeth not shall be damned. And these signs
shall follow them that believe; In my name shall
they cast out devils; they shall speak with new
tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they
drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they
shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he
was received up into heaven, and sat on the right
hand of God. And they went forth, and preached
everywhere, the Lord working with them, and
confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
These are the words of the King James Version
of Mark 16 in the bible. This would be the
conclusion of the chapter in the King James Version
of the bible. Now some of you might be wondering
why I decided to bold and underline verses nine
through twenty. It is to point out that these verses are
under serious doubt of being considered original
authentic scripture that was part of the New
Testament canon. The only other modern translation
that still has these verses would be the New King
James Version of the Holy Bible. These verses are

not in found in many modern translations, leading

some of the KJV Onlyists to make the accusation
that this removes the command to preach the Gospel
to everybody and that without this verse, we do not
have the command to evangelize. Not only is this
another example of KJV Onlyism tunnel vision, but
a lack of understanding why the modern translators
of the Bible didnt include it into their translations of
the Bible. We will go over the history of this text and
give reasons as to why this probably shouldnt in the
Bible.
First reason to give is that this passage shouldnt
belong is by looking at the manuscript evidence and
the history on this passage. It is important to note
something that the NET Bible Notes mark down:
The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some
witnesses, including two of the most respected mss
(manuscripts) (1). So concerning this, the majority
of manuscripts that we have today do contain the
longer ending of Mark 16, but however, there is
more to the story than just that. Early Church
Historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, commented on this
in his letter to Saint Marinus: One who athetises

that pericope would say that it is not found in all

copies of the gospel according to Mark: accurate
copies end their text of the Marcan account with the
words of the young man whom the women saw, and
who said to them: Do not be afraid; it is Jesus the
Nazarene that you are looking for, etc. , after
which it adds: And when they heard this, they ran
away, and said nothing to anyone, because they
were frightened. That is where the text does end, in
almost all copies of the gospel according to Mark.
What occasionally follows in some copies, not all,
would be extraneous, most particularly if it
contained something contradictory to the evidence
of the other evangelists. (2). So Eusebius is a good
testimony to this fact, even though some church
fathers quoted this passage, proving that they had the
certain manuscripts that contained the additions by
the early scribes. Another thing to point out in some
manuscripts we find in the early manuscript
accounts are that these verses were noted as not to be
relied on as authentic. Bruce Metzger, theologian
and bible scholar who was from Princeton
Theological Seminary, commented on this by saying

the following: The last twelve verses of the

commonly received text of Mark are absent from the
two oldest Greek manuscripts ( and B), from the
Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac
manuscript, about one hundred Armenian
manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian
manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913).
Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no
knowledge of the existence of these verses;
furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the
passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of
Mark known to them. The original form of the
Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes
no provision for numbering sections of the text after
16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the
passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek
copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is
marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional
signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious
addition to a document (3). One more problem that
I will point out is that when the manuscript evidence
continues for this passage, even some people kept
trying to add to it. Codex Washingtonianus is a

lacunose manuscript that contains the four biblical

Gospels in it. Washingtonianus also contained Mark
16:9-20 as well. However, the one problem we see
with this is that between verses 14 and 15, we see
something added into it. James R. White makes note
of this in his book on the King James Only issue:
Another aspect of the problem comes from Codex
W, which adds an entire paragraph to the longer
ending between verses 14 and 15. Jerome not only
knew of this addition, but indicated that it was
popular in some places (4). So when the evidence
is clear concerning the manuscript case, one has to
really consider what they are reading in order to
understand the text properly from actually studying
and research into the texts authenticity.
Secondly would be the problems concerning the
content within the passages. Two passages of which
involve the doctrines of the believers signs and
what they are. In Mark 16:17-18, we read: And
these signs shall follow them that believe; In my
name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak
with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and
if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;

they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall

recover. These are things/signs that really arent
emphasized in the other gospels or even the rest of
Marks gospel (we will get more into that in the next
paragraph). James White notes this by pointing out
the following about the snakes and poison drinking
with no ill effect: Verses 17 and 18 present yet
another problem. The signs given here are said to
accompany those who have believed, seemingly a
promise to all who have believed. This again has no
real counterpart in any other passage. Certainly
Paul was bitten by a serpent and yet felt no ill
effects. But even this story does not remove
Christians from the natural consequences of life.
Today a person can be bitten by a poisonous serpent
and suffer no harm due to the snake not releasing
any venom, which is not an uncommon occurrence.
Possibly Paul's experience shows God's sovereignty
over creation and His control of even animal life
more than it shows Paul's ability to be poisoned and
yet survive. These verses are reminiscent of many of
the apocryphal writings that were: circulating
shortly after the close of the New Testament period

(5). So we certainly know that this isnt

emphasized or repeated in any other passage of the
bible and it certainly would appear to be similar to
what is written in the apocryphal writings that were
around after the time of the New Testament writings.
Which would explain why certain Early Church
Fathers quote it since these things were around
during their time. Another thing to notice from
James White is his comments on verse 12 when
Jesus appears in a different form: Jesus is said to
appear in a different form (
) to two disciples, most probably the two on
the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). It must be
admitted that the phrase different form could refer
to the fact that the two disciples were supernaturally
kept from recognizing the Lord until He had broken
bread with them (Luke 24:16, 31). However, it seems
unusual that this phrase would be used, as it tends
to make one think that Jesus could change His form
at will. With the extreme care taken by the other
Gospel writers to make sure that all would know
that Jesus rose physically from the grave, this seems
out of place and inconsistent. (6). Indeed, this does

seem strange concerning the view of Jesus, the Son,

able to change his form. In fact, if this verse is legite,
it would certainly give people a better justification to
be a modalist or to assume that Jesus was a shape
shifter (yes, I have met people who believe this and
other passages refer to Jesus being a shape shifter).
The final inconsistency and strange view of doctrine
appears with verse 16 when baptism is viewed as a
means of also part of salvation: He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned. So once again, James White
goes into the details about this particular passage and
why it doesnt make sense: The conjunction of
baptism and belief is unusual to say the least. In no
other passage does Jesus lie these things together so
intricately. Now it is true that Jesus then goes on to
say that the basis for condemnation is unbelief, not
lack of baptism, and hence baptism does not, even
on the basis of this passage, have saving power. But
it still presents a phrase that is out of character with
what we know of Jesus' teaching from Mark's gospel
as well as the other accounts (7). The common
objection by KJV Only advocates is that this word

for baptize used in Mark 16:16, baptiz (), is

referring to the concept of the spiritual baptism by
the Holy Spirit as mentioned by John The Baptist.
However, where is the context for this? When John
and the Apostles mentioned it, they would directly
say something like Baptism of The Holy Spirit or
any other similar wording. However, in Thayers
Greek lexicon, the example that Mark 16:16 is
labeled under is read as the following
categories/definitions: In the N. T. it is used
particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first
instituted by John the Baptist, afterward by Christ's
command received by Christians and adjusted to the
contents and nature of their religion (see ,
3), viz., an immersion in water, performed as a sign
of the removal of sin, and administered to those who,
impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission
to the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom The word
is used absolutely, to administer the rite of ablution,
to baptize (8). Baptism elsewhere in the bible is
treated as a sign or ritual of one professing their new
birth in Christ, but Mark 16:16 treats baptism as if it

is a requirement for salvation. This is just not true

and therefore is more reason to rid this passage.
One final thing to consider is Marks
vocabulary/writing style is not similar to the rest of
the gospels. One thing about him ending the story
with the women seeing Jesus being afraid and not
telling anybody, is that this is part of his style of
testing the audience. Daniel B. Wallace, a Professor
of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological
Seminary, has commented on this in his video on
YouTube under the Ehrman Project channel:
Then you look at it (Mark 16:9-20) internally. It
doesnt fit Marks vocabulary, it doesnt fit his
syntax, it doesnt fit his style. So you raise a question
here and that is, Did Mark end his gospel with
saying the women were afraid, period? And it
doesnt say that they went and told the disciples that
Jesus had been raised from the dead. So you got
Jesus rising from the dead in Marks gospel, but you
dont have an appearance of the risen Christ to any
human being. And I think, Yes! Thats exactly what
Mark is trying to say. Because he wants the reader
to step into the sandals of the disciples. And he

wants the reader to ask the question: If you want to

take Jesus in His glory, are you willing to accept
Him in His suffering? (9). So considering what we
know now about this about how Marks style is
used, he is usually one to give us a good suspense
and a good set of questions for us to answer at the
end in how we are to approach coming to the faith.
Will we take the next step once we are done reading
Marks gospel after verse 8? I honestly hope so since
you got done reading the other chapters of Marks
gospel and have come so far.
In conclusion, while this passage is certainly a
good one for some to read, I personally do not
believe it should be considered canonized or
divinely inspired scripture that was part of the
original text and I believe we have provided enough
of a case to back the claim up. I do hope that nobody
finds this article to be insulting to the King James
Bible since I am a reader of it and I do enjoy reading
from its beautiful words every time I study it. Just
take this article as a means of studying and
edification into this topic. Shalom Aleichem.

SOURCES AND CITATIONS

1.) Mark 16:9-20. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18,
2016, from https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Mark
16:9-20
2.) Eusebius. (2010). Gospel problems and
solutions = Quaestiones ad Stephanum et
Marinum (CPG 3470) (R. Pearse, Ed.; A. C.
McCollum & C. Downer, Trans.). Ipswich:
Chieftain Publishing. (P. 97)
3.) Metzger, B. A. (1994). A textual
commentary on the Greek New Testament. New
York: American Bible Society.
4.) White, James R. The King James Only
Controversy: Can You Trust The Modern

Translations? Minneapolis, MN: Bethany

House, 1995. (p. 255)
5.) Ibid. (p. 257)
6.) Ibid. (p. 256-257)
7.) Ibid. (p. 257)
8.) Thayer, Joseph H. "Thayer's Greek: 907.
(baptiz) -- to Dip, Sink." Bible Hub.
Ed. Bible Hub. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2016
9.) Wallace, Daniel B. "What Are Some
Passages You Interpret Differently than Dr.
Ehrman? (Part 3; Mark 16:9-20)." YouTube.
Ed. "The Ehrman Project" YouTube, 2011. Web.
18 July 2016.