# Origin of Mark 16:9-20



## Solo Christo (May 3, 2005)

Anyone care to comment on the argument that this was not part of the original manuscripts of Mark?

Thanks


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 3, 2005)

Bible Researcher Link


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 4, 2005)

It doesn't belong, in my opinion.


----------



## DocCas (May 4, 2005)

Burgon makes a good case for the inclusion of the long ending in his classic work "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 4, 2005)

Theodore P. Letis, _A New Hearing for the Authorized Version_:



> At Mark 16:9-20, in the New International Version, there is a footnote stating "The most reliable early manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20." What they fail to make clear is that out of the approximately 5,487 Greek manuscripts available to scholars, of those that contain Mark, only three manuscripts omit this pssage. Two of them, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, were put to the most detailed study of perhaps any others to date, by Herma Hoskier, in his _Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and Indictment_ (1914). No man in his day, nor perhaps since, knew these two documents as intimately as did Hoskier. The conclusion of his study offered the following consensus.
> 
> To receive the Egyptian textual standard [represented by Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] of AD 200-400 is not scientific, and it is certainly not final. The truth is scattered over all our documents and is not inherent entirely in any one document, nor in any two. Hort persuaded himself that where (symbol) B were together ... they must be right. This kind of fetishism must be done away with.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 4, 2005)

Providential preservation is important here. There is no getting around the fact that if you reject Mark 16:9-20, you must be willing to say that God was willing to have a substantial error in the Bible for about 1800 years.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 4, 2005)

What about the Roman Catholic Church and its godless dominion for centuries?


----------



## fredtgreco (May 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> What about the Roman Catholic Church and its godless dominion for centuries?



Non sequitor.

First, one can always point to the continuation of true doctrine in the world - Jansenists, Hussites, Lollards, etc.

Second, we are not talking about something that is *supposed to be* perfect and without error. God does not promise a perfect bride until glory. The Scripture actually says the opposite. But it does say that the Word is perfect and pure.

What would you do if we found a cache of late 1st century texts, say a dozen or so in two or three locations, that did not contain whole chapters of 1 Timothy or Romans? Would you be willing to toss them?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 4, 2005)

It is scripture. Our pastor spoke on this when we had a NT reading on Mark 16 in 2004
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/Audiofiles/2004/mark16-4.rm


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 4, 2005)

I'm holding out for the possibility of finding a 3 Corinthians that explains the importance of infant baptism! :bigsmile:


----------



## Puritanhead (May 4, 2005)

I was kind of partial to the idea-- that their whole consuming poisons and handling snakes makes reference to the time when they were persecuted by those not of faith-- in some kind of Roman-style bloodgames-- that is they were forcibly compelled by persecutors to play such lethal games with their own lives. However those of faith who were persecuted came out unscathed amidst this persecution. 

It's not to say we should crazily embrace faith as supernatural immunity from physical harm at all times. Faith won't protect us from the law of gravity if we leap off a multi-story balcony to the ground.

[Edited on 5-4-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## smallbeans (May 4, 2005)

Providential arguments are tricky. Arguing from the near impossibility of imagining what God would let happen for 1800 years involves:

1. Assumptions about what God would allow sinful men to do in history
2. Assumptions about how long 1800 years is - obviously we could imagine it being okay for a few minutes as a copyist accidentally writes a few lines from some other manuscript that floated down on the table while he was copying, but 1800 years seems too long. But that is kind of subjective since 1800 years is a long time only from a certain perspective. Maybe in another 1000 generations, 1800 years will be considered part of the "early church" in their periodization. It is hard to know.

So it seems like the stronger argument involves comparing the manuscripts and basing one's decision on one's overall critical philosophy. I think that it is wise to include it with a note, however, since it is so much of a part of the church's history.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> Providential arguments are tricky. Arguing from the near impossibility of imagining what God would let happen for 1800 years involves:
> 
> 1. Assumptions about what God would allow sinful men to do in history
> ...



Jonathan,

Providential arguments can indeed be tricky, but I think that you are missing the point: it is not a single manuscript, nor just the length of time that is at issue. The entire witness of the Church and basically all the manuscripts we had would have had to be wrong.

But I do agree that one's philosophy on criticism does need to be taken into account - that is why I am philosophically opposed to revising centuries of Church witness to the Scriptures in favor of a recent discovery of a few manuscripts (which while older, are not nearly originals) that are touted by unbelievers. Funny thing is, Classics does not work this way, only Biblical criticism.


----------



## Wthompson (May 7, 2005)

Classics? Do you mean Classical Literature Criticism such as Beowulf et. al.?

I am of the opinion that it should be included without a note as only a couple of the oldest...and may I add, most tampered with...manuscripts omit them and 99% of them do not. To leave a note speaking of this would do nothing but inspire doubt. The controversy should be spoken of...but not written about in the Bible. I want my Bible free from modernist hands.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Wthompson_
> Classics? Do you mean Classical Literature Criticism such as Beowulf et. al.?
> 
> I am of the opinion that it should be included without a note as only a couple of the oldest...and may I add, most tampered with...manuscripts omit them and 99% of them do not. To leave a note speaking of this would do nothing but inspire doubt. The controversy should be spoken of...but not written about in the Bible. I want my Bible free from modernist hands.



By Classics, I mean other ancient Greek (and Latin) works such as Plato, Homer, etc.


----------



## larryjf (May 14, 2005)

If i'm not mistaken, the 2 manuscripts that do not have those verses do actually leave space for them.


----------

