were some verses after Mark 10.46 deleted?

Question

I have read somewhere that one of the ancient church fathers quoted wiped out verses after Mark 10.46, but only partially. It was also said, that maybe there was written some issues, that couldn't be in the bible... I don't remember what, but maybe Jesus met Maria from Magdala there and talked or did things that must have been wiped out. Maybe some other things,

It is strange in 10,46. Jesus came to Jericho, and immediately he leaves it!

Does anybody know what I mean, and where I can get some information about that? Some discussions, the name of the church father who quotes, and the whole "thing".

Sorry for my bad english, reading is better, my writing is bad.

Answer 1

Since the OP is asking about material that was omitted from (not added to) the original gospel of Mark we need not deal with the generally accepted view that Mark was originally shorter than it is today. The best match for the OP's question is the Secret Gospel of Mark. This version of Mark is partially preserved in Mar Saba letter, ostensibly written by Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–215).

Assuming the letter is authentic, it by no means endorses the teaching of Secret Mark. Quite the contrary it warns sternly that this gospel should not be accepted. However, it preserves a section of Secret Mark, a passage that mentions Mary of Bethany (not Magdalene) and presents a possibly scandalous version of the story of Lazarus:

And they came into Bethany and a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she knelt down before Jesus and said to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me". But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus got angry with them and went off with her into the garden where the tomb was. Right away there was a loud cry from inside the tomb. Then Jesus rolled away the stone from in front of the tomb. He went in where the youth was and stretched forth his hand and raised him up. The youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beg him to be with him. Then they left the tomb and went to the young man's house, for he was rich. Six days later, Jesus gave him instructions of what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth over his naked body. He remained with him that night, for Jesus thaught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And when Jesus woke up, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

The supposed letter from Clement rejecting the authenticity of Secret Mark can be read here. Photos of the letter are pasted above. Greek text and larger photos here

Answer 2

In order to prove that claim, an ancient manuscript of Mark's gospel with what we call chapter 10 in it, and having verses additional to copies written around the same time, would have to be presented. It is therefore not surprising that you can not include in your question any evidence supporting the claim. The answer given here, with a copy of the letter supposed to be from Clement and rejecting this 'Secret Mark', has links to aid your search, whilst discounting the claim.

This supplementary answer is just to deal with the idea that, "It is strange in 10,46 Jesus came to Jericho, and immediately he leaves it". No, there's nothing strange about that at all, as previous verses state that Jesus and the disciples were on their way to Jerusalem. Their destination was not Jericho; they merely had to pass through it on their way to Jerusalem. Besides, Matthew and Luke's gospel accounts provide more details.

Mark's account is brief, and to the point. So much so that he completely misses out the nativity, diving straight into John the Baptist's ministry when Jesus was a mature man. He leaves out many other details the other writers include. He wasn't doing a carbon copy of other accounts. It's almost as if he's tripping up over himself in his haste to get to Jesus' being in Jerusalem for that last time. Then Mark slows right down and dwells at length with that final part of Jesus' ministry.

Therefore, there's nothing strange about Mark giving no details about any stay in Jericho, only mentioning the healing of blind Bartimaeus on the way out of Jericho, as Jesus continues on to Jerusalem.

Answer 3

The ending to Mark is quite a ways after Mark 10:46, but I don't see verses omitted immediately after 10:46 This is Bruce Metsger's introduction to the subject of the ending of Mark in his commentary where he goes into great detail.

  16:9–20      The Ending(s) of Mark

Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), 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 that 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. -- Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 102–103). United Bible Societies.

Answer 4

---

It is commonly believed that Mark 16:9-20 is not present in the oldest manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican, while other manuscripts have partial omissions and variations. However, it is worth noting that Mark 16:9-20 is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus as early as the second or third century. The Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts are considered to have been written around the early 1800s, per Lobegott Friedrich Constantin (von) Tischendorf, a German biblical scholar. Tischendorf is believed to have discovered the world's oldest and most complete Bible in 1844, dating back to the mid-4th century, and named it Codex Sinaiticus after Saint Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai. However, a careful examination of Codex Sinaiticus reveals many omissions due to carelessness. This illustrates that although a manuscript may be "older," it does not necessarily make it "more reliable." It's also important to note that the Codex Sinaiticus was a poorly transcribed manuscript by a monk named C. Simonides, and it should not be considered for inclusion in any Bible. Finally, it's crucial to recognize that original manuscripts do not exist.