Mark Chapter 16
Also a short chapter, also 20 verses.
Here, the two Marys ( the "other" Mary is the Mother of James the Less, as spoken of earlier.), and Salome buy spices to go and anoint him. He has been in the grave three days. He has 75 lbs of spices on him already. Yet they plan to take more. Salome was mentioned earlier also. MSB note says there's a note on the women at Matt 27:56. It also says Luke mentions a woman named Joanna being there, and that likely there were several others. The fact that these women all show up on the third day with burial spices shows that they expected Jesus' body to still be in the tomb. They didn't expect, or didn't comprehend what he had said about rising again.
In this account, no earthquake is mentioned, the guards are not mentioned, and the stone is already moved when they get there. Mark tells us that the women went all the way into the tomb before encountering the "the young man" inside the tomb. Matthew is very clear that there was an angel sitting on that stone that had been rolled away. So if we want to reconcile the events of both accounts, there was an angel sitting on the rock. That angel urged them to "come see the place where he lay..." So they go inside the tomb and see the young man. Mark doesn't call him an angel. The young man tells them Jesus is risen, and that they should tell his disciples "and Peter" that Jesus is going ahead of them to Galilee. So this is very easily reconciled into a single time line. Is Peter mentioned because he is still mourning his denials and is not with the other 10 at this time? MSB says it is so Peter would know that Jesus had not excluded him because of his denials. Could be both...
They leave the tomb, and flee from it. They are trembling and astonished. Mark says they told no one at all about this, because they were afraid. All these women, and not one "talked"?
Then there is a note in my ESV that says - right in the column, not as a footnote - that "Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20. It also has a footnote to that statement. It mentions two or three variations in the rest of the verses in Mark, some inserting add'l material after vs 8 but before 9-20. MSB has a very long note about these verses. His note starts with there being strong evidence suggesting that these last verses were not originally part of the book of Mark. Very early church fathers note that these verses are missing from early manuscripts. Scribal marks indicate that those copying it considered the verses "spurious". MSB says not to build any doctrine based solely on the verses, and yet...it has come down to us as part of the Bible, and should be kept in there, just read in context with other passages only.
Could Mark have died suddenly, before completely finishing the book? And so they knew it was left unfinished, and some decided to finish it for him? Early complaints about Mark included the fact that those verses were questionably his, and that without them, the book ends suddenly and mentions not a single appearance of Jesus after the resurrection.
Looked back at MSB notes before the book. Many believe it was written in Rome in about AD 50. There is a significant debate though that it wasn't written until after Peter died in 68 AD or so. It is considered the memoirs of Peter, though it was written down by Mark. It was written mostly to Gentiles in Rome. If it was written late, Peter may have been dictating it, and Peter died before it was finished. If it was written after Peter died, and Mark took it upon himself to write down Peter's recollections after Peter was buried, maybe it was Mark that died before he finished writing the whole thing, most especially if the 68 AD date is correct. Mark does include a lot of detail about Peter's denials, but the three are not exactly the same as in John. There are differences. Might be a good study to compare them all.
It is in those last verses that Mark says this:
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. [Mar 16:16 ESV]
And this is also where we find these verses:
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." [Mar 16:17-18 ESV]
All three of these have been used to establish doctrine - and some of that doctrine is very questionable. Like the snake bites and such. Maybe these are the doctrines MSB was referring to and recommending that these last verses of Mark be looked at only in context with other scripture.
I saw something previously that corroborated one part of these signs in another gospel, but I don't remember where exactly. If we apply these signs, my sense is that they should apply only to the apostles. Yes, tongues show up as a gift, and may still be here, but surely the apostles would have had this gift also. Just because one of these shows up specifically as a gift of the spirit does not mean that they all should be included in the gifts. That does not mean that everyone has all of these.
These were the last chapters of two of the gospels. I finish the other two tomorrow morning.