# Is Mark 16:9-20 Scripture?



## Hamalas (Aug 6, 2009)

So I'm curious to see what y'all think about the validity of Mark 16:9-20. Is this part of Scripture or was it added by man?


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 6, 2009)

Hamalas said:


> So I'm curious to see what y'all think about the validity of Mark 16:9-20. Is this part of Scripture or was it added by man?



Ben, the answer to that question depends upon one's persuasion of textual critical persuasion. If you are convinced by the modern textual theories which are largely held today then you would be of the opinion that this passage was added by some later copiest and therefore not inspired.

If, however, you are persuaded that the Byzantine text tradition (far and away the majority of extant manuscripts) then you would be convinced that this passage is inspired Scripture.


----------



## Prufrock (Aug 6, 2009)

Our confessional tradition certainly seems to think so: see WCF 7:3; 8:4; 17:3; 28:4; WSC 28; WLC 35; 51; 60; 63. Also, see HC 71. And they were certainly aware of the circumstances regarding this section of scripture.


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 6, 2009)

I say 'NO' and it was probably Photoshopped by a tech minded amanuensis.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 6, 2009)

Part of the reason behind the exclusion involves more than manuscript tradition. There are discrepancies in the vocabulary of those verses that are noticeably different than the rest of Mark. However, it must also be conceded that it is an short passage and it may be a bit much to place so much emphasis on so few verses in order to warrant a conclusion of exclusion.


----------



## Hamalas (Aug 6, 2009)

I'm in unfamiliar waters here (being both a layman and a young man) so I am very open to rebuke in this matter. The reason I am raising this question (and the reason I think that Mark 16:9-20 is not part of Scripture) is because of a chapter I recently read by Daniel Doriani. Here is what he had to say about this passage:



> [T]here is strong evidence against the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. First, the two earliest, complete manuscripts of the Gospels, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, lack the passage. Because of their early date and reputation for accuracy, these are widely regarded as two of the best witnesses to the original text of the New Testament. Second, while only a few later manuscripts omit the passage, many mark it with asterisks or marginal comments, indicating that older Greek copies lacked the passage. Third, some early manuscripts of Mark in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian lack 16:9-20. Fourth, Eusebius, the greatest historian of the early church, and Jerome, the greatest linguist of the early church, both judged the text to be spurious. One of Jerome's epistles says, "Almost all the Greek codices do not have this concluding portion." Eusebius said that accurate copies of Mark ended with verse 8 and that 16:9-20 was missing from almost all manuscripts. Thus, Jerome and Eusebius were aware of many copies, now lost, that lacked Mark 16:9-20. Fifth, such early theologians as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem never refer to the longer ending of Mark. Sixth, various manuscripts of the New Testament have three distinct endings of Mark following 16:8, which shows that early Christians were not sure how Mark ended. Seventh, the vocabulary and style of the traditional ending differ significantly from the rest of Mark. For example, there are seventeen words the either appear only in this section of Mark or are used in a sense not found elsewhere in Mark. Stylistically, Mark's customary transitional words, "immediately" (_euthys_) and "again" (_palin_) are absent, and his habit of connecting sentences with "and" (_kai_), called parataxis, is not followed. Eighth, the longer ending does not carry forward the dramatic sequence in 16:6-8, since it never describes the meeting, foretold by the angel (v. 7), between Jesus and the disciples in Galilee.
> 
> In addition, the arguments for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 are not as strong as they seem. First, while most manuscripts do include 16:9-20, the great majority of them come from later centuries and belong to one family of manuscripts, called the "majority" or "Byzantine" text. Second, even if most Greek copies and most translations into other languages did have 16:9-20, it is easier to see how some would _add_ 16:9-20 than it is to explain why others would _delete_ it. Third, even if some church fathers do cite Mark 16:9-20, those with access to the best resources deny its authenticity. There are, therefore, powerful arguments against the authenticity of 16:9-20. It seems that the earliest copies of Mark ended at 16:8.


----------



## Prufrock (Aug 6, 2009)

Tim, 

A long time ago. I'd defer to someone more able in patristics, but I know that both Jerome and Eusebius note that it is lacking from most manuscripts. The reformers and early orthodox were familiar with their writings on this, but nevertheless included them as scripture. See, for instance, the extended discussion by Beza _in loc_.

*Edit:*
Oops, I see you got rid of the question, Tim. I'm too slow!


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 6, 2009)

Yes, thanks Paul. After Ben posted his quote, I edited my question so as not to detract from the discussions. He answered it nicely, as have you.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 6, 2009)

I'd strongly recommend Dean Burgon's "the Last Twelve Verses of Mark".
It's a solid read but it addresses all aspects of the question exhaustively and concludes the verses are genuine (I found it totally convincing)


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 6, 2009)

JennyG said:


> I'd strongly recommend Dean Burgon's "the Last Twelve Verses of Mark".
> It's a solid read but it addresses all aspects of the question exhaustively and concludes the verses are genuine (I found it totally convincing)



 thus my conscience is bound by Mark 16:9-20


----------



## Hungus (Aug 6, 2009)

If it is not part of scripture, no theology is lost. If it is part of scripture no new theology is added. If you want to see how it maps to the rest of scripture, take a look at BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: Mark 16:9-20;

I will not say it is meaningless as to if it is or is not scripture, but it is not the critical text some think it is.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 6, 2009)

Based on my training and the arguments by Eusebius and Jerome, I voted no. But, a more honest answer would be "I don't know." The last couple of years, I have been gaining quite a bit more respect for the Byzantine tradition and have switched to the NKJV (based on Byzantine rather than mostly Alexandrian texts). So, I'm open to arguments from those more erudite than I am.


----------



## MW (Aug 6, 2009)

> It seems that the earliest copies of Mark ended at 16:8.



Leaving the ms. evidence to the side, as this is bound to be interpreted according to one's understanding of the history of textual transmission, one should take a close look at this hypothetical ending.

Mark 16:8, "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."

The abruptness of the ending in and of itself argues against the hypothesis that this is where the Evangelist concluded the Gospel. Contextually, the charge in verse 7, to tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus goeth before them into Galilee, anticipates the traditional ending.

There is also the well accepted thesis that Peter's preaching in Acts 10 forms something of an outline for the gospel of Mark, which includes the following in verses 40-42, "Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead." See Mark 16:14. "And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead." See Mark 16:15, 16.


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 6, 2009)

For those who made the references to the westminster standards use of these passages I would suggest that this is why we have the ability to revise them! After all most reformed churches use a revised version of the belgic confession. The original claims Paul wrote Hebrews.


----------



## reformedminister (Aug 6, 2009)

It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 6, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!



false dicheotomy


----------



## Hungus (Aug 6, 2009)

I am sure someone can point to an exception somewhere but every major modern translation I have access to has it present, some with a note and some without.


----------



## Skyler (Aug 6, 2009)

It doesn't make a difference.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any major Christian doctrines are based solely upon this portion of Scripture. And if not, what difference _does_ it make if we take it out or leave it in?

That's my policy on most disputed passages.


----------



## JML (Aug 6, 2009)

It's a shame that for hundreds of years the Bible had verses in it that weren't supposed to be there. It's a good thing the modern scholars got it fixed for us. 

(Strong Sarcasm intended)


----------



## TimV (Aug 6, 2009)

> It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!



Your Bible contains words not found in any Byzantine text. Therefore by your own logic your Bible is a perversion. But it's actually your logic that is the perversion.


----------



## William Price (Aug 6, 2009)

Skyler said:


> It doesn't make a difference.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any major Christian doctrines are based solely upon this portion of Scripture. And if not, what difference _does_ it make if we take it out or leave it in?
> 
> That's my policy on most disputed passages.



Pentecostalism is, and especially Oneness Pentecostalism is strong in use of these scriptures.


----------



## reformedminister (Aug 6, 2009)

TimV said:


> > It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!
> 
> 
> 
> Your Bible contains words not found in any Byzantine text. Therefore by your own logic your Bible is a perversion. But it's actually your logic that is the perversion.



Now let's not go to name calling. I humble myself in trying to keep a Christ-like Spirit on this board. It doesn't matter what Bible you read if you don't let the Christ of the Bible into your heart.


----------



## TimV (Aug 6, 2009)

> Now let's not go to name calling. I humble myself in trying to keep a Christ-like Spirit on this board. It doesn't matter what Bible you read if you don't let the Christ of the Bible into your heart.



Andy, the majority of the people on this board love Bibles that you call perversions. And since you mentioned Christ, He Himself used Bibles from two distinct traditions, just like most of us do.

I do not retract what I said. Your thinking on this subject is perverse. I will try to spell it out for you again. The Bible versions that you read contain words that do not come from the Byzantine tradition. You said



> It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!



There are places in the KJV that do not follow the Byzantine family of texts. Do you understand this? Do you understand what that means to your theory?

You need to learn more about the subject matter before you start throwing stones, otherwise you run the risk of both insulting people who have never done anything to you and also looking foolish.


----------



## reformedminister (Aug 6, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Now let's not go to name calling. I humble myself in trying to keep a Christ-like Spirit on this board. It doesn't matter what Bible you read if you don't let the Christ of the Bible into your heart.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do understand this and have other translations other than the KJV/NKJV. However, ultimately you have to come to a conclusion which text family represents the original. It cannot be both. All that I am saying is that I believe that the majority text, when it comes to the N. T., which has these verses in it, is the Word of God and the Alexandrian text has verses missing. The conclusion then is that it is faulty, since it is missing about eight thousand words in the N. T. Don't chastise me because you believe something different. You have a right to your own opinion and so do I, so let it rest! I do apologize to anyone for using the word perverted to describe the critical text. I was being a little thoughtless and inconsiderate of other peoples opinions. I should have used softer words to make my point, without being disrespectful.


----------



## Hungus (Aug 6, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> Now let's not go to name calling. I humble myself in trying to keep a Christ-like Spirit on this board. It doesn't matter what Bible you read if you don't let the Christ of the Bible into your heart.


Reformedminister, I do not see where TimV is calling anyone names, rather I infer that he is specifically talking about your rhetoric and logic. 


reformedminister said:


> I do understand this and have other translations other than the KJV/NKJV. However, ultimately you have to come to a conclusion which text family represents the original. It cannot be both. All that I am saying is that I believe that the majority text, when it comes to the N. T., which has these verses in it, is the Word of God and the Alexandrian text has verses missing. The conclusion then is that it is faulty, since it is missing about eight thousand words in the N. T. Don't chastise me because you believe something different. You have a right to your own opinion and so do I, so let it rest!



There are more than 2 historiographies through. Every modern translation must be considered eclectic as they draw from various bodies of literature. Even inside the historiographies there are variations on texts so much so that there is no single ideal or true text from any of them. Thee is of course another option and that is that no single historiography is correct and that if we had the original autographs we might find they infact match an as yet unknown eclectic reading. Because of these issues, you cannot pronounce a dichotomy between 2 historiographies.

Please note I am not coming down on the side of any given historiography.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Aug 6, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > > Now let's not go to name calling. I humble myself in trying to keep a Christ-like Spirit on this board. It doesn't matter what Bible you read if you don't let the Christ of the Bible into your heart.
> ...



Dear Reformed Minister,
Possibly TimV will "let it rest" because you said you have differing thoughts on the KJV/NKJV bible. But as a board member I want to point out that it was you threw the "pervision" bomb. Then you call it, "a little thoughtless" when you apoligize. What would be a softer word for perversion? I'm sorry but I can't accept your non-apology. It simply seems like a "get off my back" ploy.

Everyone know the Bible is perfect and is the Word of God and the Word from God. (that is, most Christians know this) But the facts are clear that men have made mistakes in their copies. But the Bible is still perfect.
Alan H.


----------



## TimV (Aug 6, 2009)

> I do understand this and have other translations other than the KJV/NKJV. However, ultimately you have to come to a conclusion which text family represents the original. It cannot be both. All that I am saying is that I believe that the majority text, when it comes to the N. T., which has these verses in it, is the Word of God and the Alexandrian text has verses missing. The conclusion then is that it is faulty, since it is missing about eight thousand words in the N. T. Don't chastise me because you believe something different. You have a right to your own opinion and so do I, so let it rest!



If it was proven to you that a verse in the TR was not Byzantine in origin, would you be willing to change that verse to make it conform to the Byzantine family of texts?


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 6, 2009)

*Moderator Hat On:

ENOUGH! Words were used, allegations were made, apologies were offered. Further discussion of what constitutes an apology is unnecessary. Please stick to the OP and refrain from inflammatory language on either side.*


----------



## SolaGratia (Aug 6, 2009)

Regarding Mark 16:9-20, Dr. Thomas Holland's has this to say: 

It is the reading found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic versions and other early translations. Finally, it is cited (at least in part) by many of the early church fathers such as Justin (165 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) and Augustine (430 AD). 

Dr. Holland's also comments that:

In 177 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies. In it he cites from Mark 16:19, establishing that the longer reading was in existence at this time and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeus:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein. (3:10:5).


One can find the entire quote and source info here: http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_mr16_9-20.html


----------



## Hungus (Aug 6, 2009)

SolaGratia, plagerism is not nice. Please post the source of material if it is not your own, or if it has been previously published. Your text is from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory, ©2000 and looks to be copied directly from this web article: Mark 16:9-20 (The last twelve verses of Mark)

Further, it contains a slippery slope argument at the end which is a logical fallicy which is only validated if enough chaining exists beforehand.


----------



## TimV (Aug 6, 2009)

> Further, it contains a slippery slope argument at the end which is a logical fallicy which is only validated if enough chaining exists beforehand.



In addition, building a straw man and beating it up several times in a couple paragraphs ("those who disagree with me don't believe in preservation because they think part of Mark was lost") is poor form.

So, anyone? If a verse in the TR has no Byzantine backing, who among the KJV onlies out there would be willing to change the TR to reflect the Byzantine tradition?


----------



## he beholds (Aug 6, 2009)

I don't know and chose so, but I hope the it doesn't matter peeps were kidding.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 6, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Further, it contains a slippery slope argument at the end which is a logical fallicy which is only validated if enough chaining exists beforehand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I have stated before I am persuaded that the Byzantine text has a more credible history that either the TR or the Critical texts such as Nestle. But it must be recognized by all that Textual Criticism is a complex and even complicated discipline. 

Consider one passage


Here we see that the Byzantine text and the Nestle text are in agreement against the lone Textus Receptus. Both the Byz and the Nestle text say to him who is righteous, “do, or practice, righteousness still. Here the translators of the NKJ seem to have lacked the courage to go with their own Byzantine text, which I wish they had.


----------



## TimV (Aug 6, 2009)

Bob, I'm talking about the TR, not the KJV.

So, no TR onlies willing to answer? Would you change the TR where there is no Byzantine support or not? It's not a trick question. It's not a difficult question.


----------



## Prufrock (Aug 6, 2009)

*Every one -- no matter what topic you're talking about -- cool it. Stop, and read this quote from Richard Sibbes (posted by Josh Hicks). This thread needs a breather. When re-opened, please stick to the OP. *


----------



## Prufrock (Aug 6, 2009)

*The thread is reopened; but as one brother to many others (including me), I implore us all to indeed labor to outdo one another in neither giving nor taking offense, discussing these matters in a manner becoming saints washed together in the blood of Christ, suffering together with him now as we await the glory to be revealed.

Stick to the OP.*


----------



## KSon (Aug 6, 2009)

For what it's worth, NET Bible's take on the passage (from the translational notes), which gives the best 'technical' argument for its exclusion. Apply your presuppositions from there:

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Θ Ë13 33 2427 Ï lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”

Just felt it prudent to add that I voted for the inclusion of the passage. That said, I think it is important for those of us with that belief to understand fully the reasoning behind those who hold strongly for its exclusion.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 7, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> It's in my Bible too! Byzantine family all the way (KJV/NKJV). This is the problem. Either the Byzantine Text or Alexandrian Text is the Word of God and the other is a perversion. You have to come to that conclusion and make a choice. Like I said, it is in my Bible!



What I find interesting is something my pastor has said on the issue. To those in the time of Christ, there were known differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text of the OT. They had no problem with calling either the scripture. They knew the differences, and yet did not say one was right and the other wrong. They held both were correct. While I did not write it down (I wish I had now) I believe I remember him bringing out quotes from both versions of the OT that the reason they know which each came from was because the text reads differently in the other. What does that say about how the original writers of the NT thought about the text? It says they thought about it differently than what we tend to think about such things.

I wonder if that is what ought to be here ... if ones theology is correct these verses add nothing to what is already known. There is nothing new in them, and nothing taken away by them (which is what one would expect if someone was attempting to make Mark end more fluidly, and yet have an orthodox representation of what was added.)

The abruptness of the shorter end may testify to the validity of it. People don't leave off things and make them harder to read, they add things and make them easier to read/understand.

The "majority" of people testifying about something they have never seen themselves is no improvement of support (if I tell a story incorrectly, and 1000 people here my telling, and repeat it, does it make it more valid than the correct story told to 5 people who repeat what I said?)

Of course the other point is that with the knowledge that God keeps his word pure according to his point of view, what we can be sure of is this: regardless of which textual tradition one follows, the sum and whole of what we need to know is contained in the Bibles we have today. What we have after 400 years of new texts and new discoveries ... what part of the WCF has changed *due to those discoveries?* _ Answer: Absolutely nothing._


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 7, 2009)

*Food for thought for Byzantiners like me*

Ponder the relevance for exegesis and application on these ...


----------



## Hamalas (Aug 7, 2009)

Whew! I apologize for opening this ! I had no idea this was such a controversial topic. I hope that my question has not caused anyone hardship or harmed any of our relationships. I enjoy examining these issues with all of you my dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ. I hope that we can continue to humbly seek the truth in this matter.

So as a follow-up question, are the issues involved in Mark 16:9-20 the same issues at stake with John 7-8:11? Does this really all come down to what textual tradition you hold to? (Again I apologize for my ignorance, I have not yet had the opportunity to study textual criticism.)


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 7, 2009)

Hamalas said:


> Whew! I apologize for opening this ! I had no idea this was such a controversial topic. I hope that my question has not caused anyone hardship or harmed any of our relationships. I enjoy examining these issues with all of you my dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ. I hope that we can continue to humbly seek the truth in this matter.
> 
> So as a follow-up question, are the issues involved in Mark 16:9-20 the same issues at stake with John 7-8:11? Does this really all come down to what textual tradition you hold to? (Again I apologize for my ignorance, I have not yet had the opportunity to study textual criticism.)



No need to apologize Ben. Though this thread did run off into the ditch a few times your question was an honest attempt to get help and you have good reason to seek it here. We generally behave better!  

What issues do you refer to in John 7:8-11?


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 7, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> Ponder the relevance for exegesis and application on these ...



Call me dense, but there is no explanation of why it ought be the way the particular "ought to" is in the attached papers. No explanation, just bare assertion.

Forgive me brother, but I have a particular personality that sees assertions without the support for them as meaningless (outside of scripture). I don't take the assertion that evolution is a fact, and while I am sure you would agree with me on that rejection, I have to believe you have reasons for the assertions in the attached papers. Please share...


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 7, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > Ponder the relevance for exegesis and application on these ...
> ...




Brian I would not call you dense, my brother. No doubt the fault is in my feeble brain! I was just tossing a tid-bit to any of my brothers, who like myself, appreciate the Byzantine text. From time to time I have found little surprises like those I offered and thought others might find them interesting as well.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 7, 2009)

Hamalas said:


> So as a follow-up question, are the issues involved in Mark 16:9-20 the same issues at stake with John 7-8:11? Does this really all come down to what textual tradition you hold to? (Again I apologize for my ignorance, I have not yet had the opportunity to study textual criticism.)



That pretty much sums it up. If you are willing to look at TR and say it might be wrong in some of the passages, and you look to find older mss that might be more accurate, then you probably won't take John 7:53 - 8:11 (the woman caught in adultery). If on the other hand you look at the TR and say that God must have kept the original signatures (or something equivalent to that) not only preserved, but available in every generation, then you will probably hold to the TR as the original and accept that passage as well.

I tend to look at the differences in what could be passed as doctrine from the passages unique to those sections, and it is nothing of consequence (no changes to the WCF from the time of the TR to today is based on "corrected" passages of scripture. I personally think that God preserves his word as he defines it, and that while there is always a remnant, that remnant might not have the word available (the scriptures discovered at the time of King Josiah shows what I would call an example of exactly that). Also, that all Hebrew versions of the scriptures are now in post Babylonian formed letters (all those that were bright and capable went into exile, so who was left in Jerusalem to make copies of the scripture? the slow, unskilled). The "original" is long since gone ... so what does it mean that God preserves his word pure? Ask him. I just know that what we have is 100% reliable because it is God's word regardless of which text we take it from. How's that for an answer?


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Aug 7, 2009)

TimV said:


> Your Bible contains words not found in any Byzantine text. Therefore by your own logic your Bible is a perversion. But it's actually your logic that is the perversion.



Care to prove - Metzger tried this over the last few verses of Revelation and had to issue a retraction. My understanding is that no one has even examined 50% of the extant Byzantine manuscripts so this is a big fideistic leap.

Certainly, the true Church has settled providentially on the fact that the Bible contains 66 books and that Mark 16:9-20 is in one of them. This is reflected in our Confessions. If you wish to now go outside these, that is your prerogative.

If a particular version or manuscript is not truthful, pure and does not faithfully represent what God said, it cannot properly be called “the word of God.” For instance, the NIV perverts Mark 1:2-3 into a lie as it reads, “It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.” The RV, ASV, NASB, ASV and the Chinese Union Version also read, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” Interestingly, the corrupt Douay Rheims of Rome reads, “As it is written in Isaias the prophet,” However, it is not written in Isaiah, but in Malachi 3:1. The King James following the TR correctly reads, “As it is written in the prophets.” This TR quote is also consistent with the writings of the Church Fathers two hundred years before the Alexandrian manuscripts and they follow the TR reading. Irenaeus in 202 AD writes, 



> Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets,….” Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord.



How can we call a version or text “the word of God” when it has a statement such as this that is not true and two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time? God’s Words do not contradict Himself as it must be consistent with previously given revelation (as required in Deut 13:1-5) for, “God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay” (2 Cor 1:18). Even in the secular world we reject the argument that it just doesn’t matter what you believe about mathematics, as long as you’re sincere in your beliefs. It is irrational and relativistic to declare the equality of all truth-claims. The Bible applies the same principles to perversions of the actual Words of God as Jeremiah 23:36 warned, “ye have perverted the words of the living God.” 

Tim lacks transparency in stating the implications of his premises here. There is no “neutral scientific” bridge that guarantees we have an entire tradition going back to the originals outside the promises of Scripture. His view of God is as if He inspired the Words and then walked off to play an eternal celestial golf game only to return when He gets to the eighteenth hole to settle scores. However, this approach simply introduces other problems. We could not be certain that God did not inspire other books not in the Protestant Canon if we accept the premise that all God did was inspire the Words, leaving the rest to humanity to determine autonomously from God. With this pre-suppositional approach, we lose any ability to determine what is inspired and what is not. Indeed, if we believe God was involved how do we determine how much He was involved and if He stopped being involved or was only imperfectly preserving, when did He stop being fully involved? The Scriptures teach that God Sovereignly works in time to control revelation (Gal 4:4; Eph 1:10). The God of history and Scripture is not an absentee landlord.

Modern evangelicals have simply given more uncertainty to people without a doubt in Scripture. Their strategy is essentially a game of chicken with the Word of God. Some argue that it only matters how the translation makes them feel, but this argument only supports the philosophy that it is only the ideas that God inspired, and not the very words. However, Proverbs 30:5 makes it clear that “Every Word of God is pure.” The Scripture is our final authority - not our own subjective opinions on “how it makes me feel.” Anti-TR advocates need to tell us what is their final authority? If it is the “Greek Text,” which Greek text is it? Do they ever correct it? If so, how is it their final authority? Others tell us only the original Hebrew and Greek autographs are their final authority, hoping no one will notice that this is a false premise as they are not extant and the reality is that they do not have it, have never seen it, and would not even know it they stumbled over it digging in the garden. It is not surprising that some Evangelicals, such as Clark Pinnock, have abandoned preservation and inerrancy, replacing it with a position that can accommodate all sorts of mistakes in the Bible, have also given up God’s own omniscience and control of the future as well.

In effect those who reject perfect preservation are saying, “The truth is in there somewhere, even though I don’t know exactly what it is. I only know it’s in there.” Is that any help to those who want to know the particular Scriptures that are authentic under the Confession? If the “best” we have today is not perfect, there is nothing to base the Christian life on because it is all open to personal interpretation. Man can know absolute, transcendent truths but only if that truth is revealed and known by an absolute Person. The Words of the authentic text are based upon the authority from which they are derived. If this is doomed to perennial uncertainty and at the whims of textual scholars then the teachings of Scripture cannot really be universally binding moral principles. A thinking sceptic will be only too glad to point this out. 

The anti-TR critics believe that God preserves His Word in a sort of Theistic Evolutionist way through man discovering new copies and gaining new understanding of Greek, by the enlightenment of scholarship. They are unwilling to presuppose that God has authoritatively and infallibly revealed Himself and then perfectly preserved this revelation as the scripture itself declares. In effect, they reject the idea of studying the Bible according to the claims of its writers. Instead, they interpret these claims from within the presuppositions of the contemporary textual scientific worldview, which assumes that all historical textual transmission events are capable of being explained by other known historical events. However, to preserve His Word, God must ensure that accurate copies of the inspired autographs be made; else His promise that “the Word of the Lord abideth forever” is meaningless - if not false. 

It is no more illegitimate for us to presuppose God did do what He said He would do than it is for our opponents to assume He did not. However, once the CT advocate makes his initial appeal to raw sense data as evidence for determining a framework to determine the Words of God without recourse to Scripture, then no sense datum can be excluded from consideration and all logical conclusions are open to be drawn where the evidence leads. Reymond rightly argues that such an approach is specious,



> But when Christian certainty is grounded in assumptions which are regarded as “religiously neutral” and not distinctively Christian, and, in the case of sense perception, can be and often is very unreliable, how can such assumptions logically imply and compel the Christian worldview? Can it be that some unwitting presupposing of the Christian worldview is occurring along the way? While these scholars claim that their argument for God here is, in a sense, “transcendental,” that is to say, they are positing assumptions that they claim are necessary for life and knowledge to be possible, and whose ultimate implication, they say, is God, I believe that their conclusions are still freighted with the problem of uncertainty which empirical apologetic systems have never been able to overcome because of the limitations of empirical epistemology and because sense perception in particular is not always dependable, indeed, is often unreliable .



God’s Words were to control, creates and define the true Church, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (I Pet 1:23). If all the Scriptures were “written,” for the purpose of instructing New Testament saints (2 Tim 3:16), this purpose for the inspired writings must invariably demands their perfect preservation. It does not make any theological or even logical sense to argue that God inspired the Words because He wanted us to have His Words and then for most of the Church Age we have not had them and have no hope of recovering them. Logically, outside the doctrine of providential preservation, we have no way of being certain which words are inspired if we do not know which words are originally in the Bible. CT advocates have no reasonable or theological good answers for this. In his debate with CT advocate James White, Bart Ehrman cleverly pointed out the fallacy of the CT approach, 



> Despite the fact that scholars have been working diligently at these tasks for 300 years, there continues to be heated differences of opinion. There are some passages where serious and very smart scholars disagree about what the original text said, and there are some places where we will probably never know. If James wants to insist that we have the original text, then I want to know: How does he know? In any given place, and I can cite dozens of them, he will have differences of opinion not only with me, who is an expert in this field, but with every other expert in the field. If God preserved the original text intact, where is it? Why don’t we have it, and doesn’t he know where it is? I don’t know the answer to that.


If God promised to preserve all of His Words, He will not alter His course because of mankind, Satan, or anything in all of creation. A Sovereign God controls history precisely just as He has always planned and ordained and nothing can thwart His perfect will. As Nebuchadnezzar was forced to confess, “he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Dan 4:35) and Paul states, He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph 1:11). Douglas Wilson explains why we need to have this authority,



> If I believe the Bible in my hands is the absolute and objective Word of God, then when I read it, then obedience, among other things, will tend to be on my mind. But if I do not believe this, then either the Scripture can be set aside as a guide to good works, as it pleases me, or the Bible can become a nose of wax, to be molded into whatever my idea of good works might be.



One should note, paradoxically, that those who proclaim to speak for the Bible seldom seem to allow the Bible to speak. The Bible does explicitly promises that God will preserve every one of His Words forever down to the very jot and tittle of the smallest letter (Ps12:6, 7; Ps 33:11; Ps 119:152, 160; Isa 30:8; 40:8; 1 Pet 1:23-25; Matt 5:18; 24:35). In Matthew 5:18, Christ did not say “one concept” or “one doctrine” would not pass only, but spoke of the preservation of the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. God’s work cannot be imperfect as “He is the Rock, his work is perfect” (Deut 32:4).


----------



## JennyG (Aug 7, 2009)

It does seem to me that with a question like this there's often grave danger of re-inventing the wheel.
Burgon was an immensely learned (and, I think godly) man and he really did look at this from EVERY CONCEIVABLE side.
Why not everyone refer to his book, where the textual and other spade work has already been exhaustively done, and then any disagreement could take the form "I think Burgon is wrong on... [name specific point] for reasons... [x,y,z] and here's the evidence" ?

-----Added 8/7/2009 at 06:04:24 EST-----

....just a thought!


----------



## William Price (Aug 7, 2009)

I say like this. It is in our Bibles today. But, those verses were prophetic utterances that were fulfilled by the early church. There are lessons to be learned from that, but, and please, none of you take this the wrong way, when we start questioning the validity of scripture, we become of dangerous ground.


----------



## Hamalas (Aug 7, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> Hamalas said:
> 
> 
> > Whew! I apologize for opening this ! I had no idea this was such a controversial topic. I hope that my question has not caused anyone hardship or harmed any of our relationships. I enjoy examining these issues with all of you my dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ. I hope that we can continue to humbly seek the truth in this matter.
> ...



Whoops! It looks like I didn't write that reference correctly. I was trying to refer to John 7:53-8:11, the story of the woman caught in adultry. It is (to my knowledge) the only other large text of Scripture, besides Mark 16:9-20, that is disputed.


----------



## rpavich (Aug 7, 2009)

There are actually 4 potential endings of Mark...the one in question being the "long ending."

This is not a new issue and there has been mountains of literature written on the subject.

I found a good reference for all of these kind of questions is:

"The King James Only controversy" By James White.

It also addresses some of the BYZ arguments going on here also.

It's not expensive (11.99) and is a very meaty read.

Alpha and Omega Ministries

Also, I've attached a good article written by Daniel B. Wallace on the Pericope Adultrae but it mentions the endings of Mark. It's called *"My favorite passage that's not in the bible"*


----------



## nicnap (Aug 7, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> Here we see that the Byzantine text and the Nestle text are in agreement against the lone Textus Receptus. Both the Byz and the Nestle text say to him who is righteous, “do, or practice, righteousness still. Here the translators of the NKJ seem to have lacked the courage to go with their own Byzantine text, which I wish they had.



NKJV's New Testament is TR...it footnotes the Majority, and Critical. They didn't lack courage, they stuck with their manuscript.


----------



## TimV (Aug 7, 2009)

> Care to prove - Metzger tried this over the last few verses of Revelation and had to issue a retraction. My understanding is that no one has even examined 50% of the extant Byzantine manuscripts so this is a big fideistic leap.



You operate in the realms of faith, so no proving I could do would satisfy you. My question to those who think they have a reasonable assurance for their faith that the TR is absolutely perfect was:

If none of the 200 Byzantine texts we have use the word Lord in Rev. 16:5 and every single one of the Byzantine text that we have of Rev. 16:5 use the term Holy One, would you be in favor of changing Rev. 16:5 in the Textus Receptus from Lord to Holy One to bring the Textus Receptus into conformity with the Byzantine family of texts. You gave your answer months ago. So far you and CalvinandHodges are the only ones who have been willing to answer, and your answers are the opposite of each other.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 7, 2009)

nicnap said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > Here we see that the Byzantine text and the Nestle text are in agreement against the lone Textus Receptus. Both the Byz and the Nestle text say to him who is righteous, “do, or practice, righteousness still. Here the translators of the NKJ seem to have lacked the courage to go with their own Byzantine text, which I wish they had.
> ...




Fair enough, and duly noted. Thanks


----------



## nicnap (Aug 7, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> > rbcbob said:
> ...



No, prob...just giving a heads up.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 7, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Care to prove - Metzger tried this over the last few verses of Revelation and had to issue a retraction. My understanding is that no one has even examined 50% of the extant Byzantine manuscripts so this is a big fideistic leap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tim, I am a Byzantine text-NKJV guy and I agree that at Rev 16:5 the word "Lord" has wrongly been inserted into the TR.


----------



## TimV (Aug 7, 2009)

> Tim, I am a Byzantine text-NKJV guy and I agree that at Rev 16:5 the word "Lord" has wrongly been inserted into the TR.



And that could be reduced to

*"I believe the Textus Receptus is the true Word of God, without error, except for those places where there are errors"*

and I'm on board with that. After our own CalvinandHodges went on Dr. White's program (and made us all proud of his bravery) he basically said the same thing. Of course people like you and him think that there are far fewer mistakes in the TR than most of the other people posting on this board, but as a lowest common denominator the bolded sentence would work with most everyone here except Mr. Ferguson and a very few others.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 7, 2009)

Apart from this turning into a free-for-all diverging far from the OP, this discussion of Mark 16 comes up occasionally, and that by well-meaning brothers or sisters asking sincere questions. But then arise flip-side-of-the-coin Peter Ruckman types albeit _*against*_ the KJV / TR and befoul the air with inflammatory rhetoric, venomous contempt, and character defamation, so that cordial discussion is done away with and very often threads are shut down. I do not know if this is a deliberate tactic to shut threads down, or just a form of sport to let spread roots of bitterness growing too big for their own pots, or an incursion of the adversary (Cf. James 3:13-18) simply allowed by mod / admin tolerance. Were I in one of these categories (which I do not wish to be) I would nip in the bud such flamers from the thread and those habitual in this would ban from PB. Intelligence has nothing to do with this, neither does biblical knowledge, for the devil has these both in abundance, but his heart is bad, and he both thinks and means ill for those he targets.

I rarely post in this forum anymore because it continues. But for the sake of newcomers sincerely asking I will post some info on Mark 16 sources.

James Snapp briefly on Mark 16 MarkOne

James Snapp more extensively: http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/PDF/snapporiginmkupdate.pdf

_THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK_, J.W. Burgon: 
plain text: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/mark.txt
PDF: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/mark.pdf

Plus a new book noted in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/new-book-mark-16-9-20-a-50376/

Numerous writers have taken up the defense, as Thomas Holland in his classic KJV defense, _Crowned with Glory_, and Harvard text critic E.F. Hills’ _The King James Version Defended_.

Concerning the disparity between the KJV / TR and the Byzantine text please see the thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/#post304894

A response to Dr. James White on Rev 16:5, here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/responding-james-white-aomin-44382/

A variety of general textual discussions here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/jerusalem-blades-posts-partial-compilation-48676/

I have an intact Bible, such that I can say I have the Word of God in my hand, without error, preserved according to His numerous promises (see links above for support of this statement). It does get some folks in an uproar when I say I have this (what an age we are in!), but so what! My warfare is not against my differing brethren, but against the powers of darkness. You text critics who are looking for a fight, why don’t you use your wits, time, and energy to tackle Bart Ehrman, seeing as he is mentoring multitudes of young adversaries to oppose our precious Faith by destroying confidence in our Bibles. Is it because the old well-worn arguments against the KJV / TR camp are easier for you to keep repeating? Ehrman is coming after the Scriptures, book after book, lecture after lecture, and many are heeding him. Why waste our time on this futile internecine warfare when there is a _real_ combatant at your doors? It might take a little fresh research and thought, but dealing with the strategies of his assault will be well worth it in the days to come. 

Anyway, that’s where my energies are directed, there, studying and preaching through Revelation, and preparing a refutation of “Theonomy”.

These ungracious squabbles (of course, many are quite gracious!) are distasteful, and disgraceful. You know, the time may soon be upon us when we are known _primarily_ for our kindness and tender regard of the brethren – especially with those who differ from us – call it godly respect, followed by our doctrinal soundness. We Christians may be opening our homes to house our fellows who first succumb to the failing economy, and after that those who are persecuted for their faith, as the demonic tide rises before the end. And who wants flaming-mouth nasty-spirited _professing_ believers in a crowded room where such antics quench the Spirit who is our peace and power in tribulation?


----------



## TimV (Aug 7, 2009)

> Why waste our time on this futile internecine warfare when there is a real combatant at your doors?



Why respond when your Pastor is accused of using a "perversion" every Sunday?

Steve, I thought you admitted a few weeks ago that your former positions on the subject were due to your over reliance on fundy Baptist sources? Has something changed?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 7, 2009)

Tim, I was referring to my disrespectful and pugnacious attitudes.

People will always be calling names — they called our King names! When I worked in special ed we had a strategy called a "planned ignore" — which was to ignore certain negative behaviors lest we feed into the desire for getting negative attention. Or as the Lord did, which was not to respond to every calumny.


----------



## TimV (Aug 7, 2009)

I see. So you still believe the TR is the entire, perfectly preserved Word of God without fault? Even where it differs from the Byzantine tradition?


----------



## Prufrock (Aug 7, 2009)

*I'll let Steve give an answer to the above question if he wants; but after that, this topic of conversation (places where the TR differs/is the same as the Byzantine text) is done for this thread. Stick to the OP. This thread isn't designed for polemics or for sustaining long-running arguments, but for graciously providing information to a brother who asked for help about a specific issue. If others want to carry on different discussions, please start a new thread.*


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 7, 2009)

You wouldn't be trying to bait me into another long-drawn-out wrangling "discussion" on this matter, would you, despite my caveat re such activities?

How many times do I have to go on the record, and defend the particulars involved? I'm not bitin' — I've made my case, and that amply.

I got other fish to fry.


----------

