“SHOULD THE LAST 12 VERSES
OF MARK 16:9-12,13-16,17-20
BE OMITTED FROM THE BIBLE?”
“SHOULD THE LAST
12 VERSES
OF MARK 16:9-12,13-16,17-20
BE OMITTED FROM THE BIBLE?”
THE
LIE
We’ve
all seen the modern versions
with a footnote or comment
about
MARK 16:9-12,13-16,17-20 that read …
“The
most reliable early manuscripts & other ancient witnesses do not
have MARK 16:9-12,13-16,17-20.”
And
so many modern readers assume that these verses should not be
in the
Bible.
Indeed,
it has become fashionable for critical Bible scholars to
question MARK 16:9-12,13-16,17-20 validity and genuineness.
These
Bible critics claim that these verses should not be in Mark’s
gospel because:
(a) Some Greek manuscripts (B and Aleph) and early Christian writers omit MARK 16:9-12,13-16,17-20
(b)
They think that MARK 16:9-12,13-16,17-20 has a different style and
vocabulary
(c)
They think MARK 16:9-12,13-16,17-20 was
added by a later hand
THE
TRUTH
The
evidence proves that the verses of MARK 16:9-12,13-16,17-20 are 100%
genuine
because the overwhelming majority of manuscripts of Mark
contain the
passage.
With
some copyist from between 200-300 AD, leaving a copy of Mark’s gospel
unfinished,
this imperfect copy has become the source of a very small
number
of defective copies, with Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus
(B)
being the main two.
WHAT
IS THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE FOR Mark 16:9-20 BEING IN MARK’S GOSPEL? Which
would you believe?
Firstly
(a) The
618 manuscripts containing Mark 16:9-20
or
the two
Roman Catholic corrupt manuscripts (Aleph & B)
which omit
them?
(b)
Dean John Burgon says of Codex B (Vaticanus) and Aleph
(Sinaiticus) …
“The
impurity of the text exhibited by these two codices is not a
question of
opinion but of fact. In the gospels alone, Vaticanus leaves
out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It
bears traces
of careless transcription on every page.
Sinaiticus ‘abounds with errors of the eye and pen
to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in
documents
of first-rate importance’.
On
many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very
carelessness. Letters, words, even whole
sentences,
are frequently written twice over, or begun or immediately cancelled;
while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because
it happens
to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs 115 times
in
the New Testament.”
Secondly
(a)
The Greek manuscripts of 18 Uncials (capital letters)
and 600
Cursives (running writing) contain it.
(b) Mark
16:9-20 was found in 600 Miniscule manuscripts (no capitals),
and in 18
out of 20 ancient Uncial manuscripts … and this totals 618
Greek
manuscripts.
(c)
The three old Uncials of Codex Alexandrinus (A);
Ephraemi
(C); and Bezae (D) all contain Mark 16:9-20, while ONLY
Codices Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph)
omit them.
(d)
These two manuscripts, Aleph and B, exhibit a
mutilated
text as they do in many other passages … as they leave space for
these
12 verses leaving gaps in the text … showing that the
verses of Mark
16:9-20 have been eliminated.
(e)
Carelessly written, Aleph and B are defective
and untrustworthy,
with numerous omissions … as B (Vaticanus) omits
words and
clauses 1491 times in the gospels alone, with most of these
defects
occurring in Mark’s gospel.
EIGHTEEN
EARLY CHURCH WRITERS who quote Mark 16:9-20 as genuine are …
Papias
(100 AD)
Tertullian
(145-220 AD)
Tatian
in his Diatessaron (150 AD)
Justin
Martyr quotes Mark 16:20 (151 AD)
Irenaeus
comments on Mark 16:19 (180 AD)
Hippolytus
quotes Mark 16:17-18 (190-227 AD)
The
Gospel of Nicodemus contains Mark 16:15, 16, 17, 18 (250 AD)
Vincentius
quotes Mark 16:17-18 at the Seventh Council of Carthage in the presence
of 87
African Bishops (256 AD)
The
Apostolical Constitutions quote Mark 16:16 (300 AD)
Jerome’s Vulgate
retains Mark 16:9-20 (331-420 AD)
Eusebius
acknowledged Mark 16: 9-20 (325 AD)
Aphraates
quotes Mark 16: 16, 17, 18 (337 AD)
Ambrose
Archbishop of Milan quotes Mark 16: 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 (374-397 AD)
Chrysostom Archbishop
of Constantinople called “Golden Mouth” quotes Mark 16: 19, 20 and
adds
“This is the end of the gospel” (400 AD)
Augustine
quotes Mark 16:9, 12, 14, 15-18, 16, 19 (400 AD)
Cyril
of Alexandria accepts it Mark 16:9-20 and comments on it (410 AD)
Victor
of Antioch quotes and strongly endorses Mark 16:9-20 as to its
genuineness, and refuting Eusebius’ doubts. Mark 16:9-20 were in
Victors
Palestinian copy of Mark (425 AD)
Nestorius Archbishop
of Constantinople quotes Mark 16:20 (428-432 AD)
The
above eighteen authorities belong to every area of the
Ancient
Church (Burgon p423)
THE
ANCIENT VERSIONS which include Mark 16:9-20 declare its existence in
older Greek copies used by translators from 100-699 AD. These versions
include
…
Two
ancient versions from 100-199 AD … Old Latin, Peshito Syriac
Four
ancient versions from 200-299 AD … Coptic Sahidic, Bohairic,
Fayyumic and
Two
ancient versions from 300-399 AD … Jeromes’ Latin version, Gothic
version
Three
ancient versions from 400-499 AD … Egyptian, Armenian, Philoxian
Syriac
Two
ancient versions from 500-699 AD … Georgian, Ethopic
THE
LECTIONARIES which include Mark 16:9-20 are those numbered 60,
69, 70, 185, 547, 1761 et al
ARCHE
AND TELOS
In
very early times it was customary to mark the beginning and the end of
a Gospel
passage to be read in public with the words … ARCHE (at the beginning
of the reading) and TELOS (at the end of the reading).
It
is likely that an early copy of Mark included all of Mark 16:9-20 with
a
marginal note (TELOS) after Mark 16:8 to indicate that the lesson
should end
there.
A
copyist later misinterpreted the marginal note (‘TELOS’ meaning ‘END’)
to mean
ended at Mark 16:8, and that Mark 16:9-20 was not part of Mark’s Gospel.
This
mistake was repeated in a number of copies which gave
rise to a
very few defective manuscripts seen today. Codex 24 clearly has TELOS
after
Mark 16:8 and TELOS after Mark 16:20.
QUESTION:
“Why would God end the gospel of Mark at Mark 16:8, with Christians
trembling,
fleeing, bewildered, saying nothing to anyone, and being afraid?”
ANSWER:
“He wouldn’t!”
This
would be a very pessimistic and negative ending that is most
uncharacteristic
of Mark’s and Holy Spirit’s style.
The
whole purpose of Mark’s gospel is that Christians should not be
afraid.
Mark
would not omit the resurrection climax, being the main point of his
gospel, and the ending on which the entire Christian faith depended.
Thus
the verses of MARK 16:9-12,13-16,17-20 are genuine.
Keith Piper “Serious Omissions in the NIV”
QUESTION: “AREN’T THE OLDER MANUSCRIPTS MORE RELIABLE?”
This
website’s front page is:
www.
