Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
[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.
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)
It seems that the earliest copies of Mark ended at 16:8.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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!
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, 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: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!
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.
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 your Bibles. 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.
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!