[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
Oh really. :o You must have read a different article or skipped the second part. He presents both sides.
"CONCLUSION
For the unbiased observer, this matter is settled: the strongest piece of internal evidence mustered against the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 is no evidence at all. The two strongest arguments offered to discredit the inspiration of these verses as the production of Mark are seen to be lacking in substance and legitimacy. The reader of the New Testament may be confidently assured that these verses are original—written by the Holy Spirit through the hand of Mark as part of his original gospel account."
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780
GabuEx
Oh certainly, it states the conclusion that Mark 16:9-20 is authentic and genuine, but it does so by acting as though the evidence against its authenticity and genuineness doesn't exist. I find it especially interesting that it would claim that only biased observers would dispute that v. 9-20 is authentic and genuine, because a number of sites whose Christian credentials few would argue against do just that. CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry - states that "the dispute is not settled and may never be." GotQuestions.org flatly states that "the external evidence strongly suggests these verses were not originally part of Mark's gospel." Tekton Apologetics Ministries has a lengthy discussion of the passage, in which it states at length that:
"The two earliest parchment codices, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus, plus 2 minuscules and several versions and manuscripts, do not contain verses 9-20. Two important early Christian writers testify that these verses are not found in Mark.... Many manuscripts that do have these verses 'have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack them,' and other textual witnesses add 'conventional signs used by scribes to mark off a spurious addition to a literary text.' There are also three variant endings of Mark in circulation. Our vss. 9-20 are the most common, but there is also a 'short' ending, and seven Greek manuscripts with both the long and short ending. However, this particular evidence may be too late to be of any relevance. The above evidence is absolutely decisive by the canons of textual criticism (whether secular or Biblical)."
Furthermore, almost all modern Bibles include a footnote indicating the disputed nature of the verse. The NIV states that "the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." The NASB states that "later mss add vv 9-20." The Message states that "Mark 16:9-20 ... is contained only in later manuscripts." The NLT states that "The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8."
The bottom line is that basically all modern scholarship and even a not insignificant segment of Christian apologetics affirms that Mark 16:9-20 was probably not in the original text (although it is certainly possible that Mark wrote another ending that has since been lost). To claim definitively not only that this is not the case, but also even that those who feel that this is the case must be necessarily biased (because otherwise, we are told, they would obviously agree), is something to which I am not even certain precisely how one ought to respond.
A discussion of the corrupt Alexandrian manuscript stream is beyond the scope of this thread, as well as the Greek transalation done by Hort and Wescott, two spiritualists and pals of Madame Blavatsky, the foundation of virtually all modern Bibles is beyond the scope of this thread.
"Those who support exclusion of Mark 16:9-20 have not been forthright in divulging that, as a matter of fact, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus frequently diverge from each other, with one or the other siding with Alexandrinus against the other."
"Standing in contrast with the evidence for omission is the external and internal evidence for the inclusion of verses 9-20. The verses are, in fact, present in the vast number of witnesses (see the UBS Greek text's critical apparatus—Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189). This point alone is insufficient to demonstrate the genuineness of a passage, since manuscripts may perpetuate an erroneous reading that crept into the text and then happened to survive in greater numbers than those manuscripts that preserved the original reading. Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of the witnesses that support verses 9-20 cannot be summarily dismissed out of hand. Though rejecting the genuineness of the verses, the Alands offer the following concession that ought to give one pause: "It is true that the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is found in 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts as well as the rest of the tradition, enjoying over a period of centuries practically an official ecclesiastical sanction as a genuine part of the gospel of Mark" (1987, p. 287, emp. added). Such longstanding and widespread acceptance cannot be treated lightly nor dismissed easily. It is, at least, possible that the prevalence of manuscript support for the verses is due to their genuineness.
The Greek manuscript evidence that verifies the verses is distinguished, not just in quantity, but also in complexion and diversity. It includes a host of uncials and minuscules. The uncials include Codex Alexandrinus (02) and Ephraemi ReÂscriptÂus (04) from the fifth century. [NOTE: Technically, the Washington manuscript may be combined with these two manuscripts as additional fifth-century evidence for inclusion of the verses, since it simply inserts an additional statement in between verses 14 and 15.] Additional support for the verses comes from Bezae CantÂaÂbriÂgiÂensis (05) from the sixth century (or, according to the Alands, the fifth century—1987, p. 107), as well as 017, 033, 037, 038, and 041 from the ninth and tenth centuries. The minuscule manuscript evidence consists of the "Family 13" collection, entailing no fewer than ten manuscripts, as well as numerous other minuscules. The passage is likewise found in several lectionaries.
The patristic writings that indicate acceptance of the verses as genuine are remarkably extensive. From the second century, Irenaeus, who died c. A.D. 202, alludes to the verses in both Greek and Latin. His precise words in his Against Heresies were: "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" (3.10.5; Roberts and DonaldÂson, 1973, 1:426 ). It is very likely that Justin Martyr was aware of the verses in the middle of the second century. At any rate, his disciple, Tatian, included the verses in his Greek Diatessaron (having come down to us in Arabic, Italian, and Old Dutch editions) c. A.D. 170.
Third century witnesses include TertulÂlian, who died after A.D. 220, in his On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ch. 51; Roberts and Donaldson, 1973, 3:584), Against Praxeas (ch. 30; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:627), and A Treatise on the Soul (ch. 25; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:206 ). Cyprian, who died A.D. 258, alluded to verses 17-18 in his The Seventh Council of Carthage (Roberts and Donaldson, 1971, 5:569). Additional third century verification is seen in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. Verses 15-18 in Greek and verses 15-19 in Latin are quoted in Part I: The Acts of Pilate (ch. 14), and verse 16 in its Greek form is quoted in Part II: The Descent of Christ into Hell (ch. 2) (Roberts and Donaldson, 1970, 8:422,436,444-445). De Rebaptismate (A.D. 258 ) is also a witness to the verses. All seven of these second and third century witnesses precede the earliest existing Greek manuscripts that verify the genuineness of the verses. More to the point, they predate both VatiÂcanus and Sinaiticus.
Fourth century witnesses to the existence of the verses include Aphraates (writing in A.D. 337—see Schaff and Wace, 1969, 13:153), with his citation of Mark 16:16-18 in "Of Faith" in his Demonstrations (1.17; Schaff and Wace, 13:351), in addition to the Apostolic Constitutions (5.3.14; 6.3.15; 8.1.1)—written no later than A.D. 380 (Roberts and Donaldson, 1970, 7:445,457,479). Ambrose, who died A.D. 397, quoted from the section in his On the Holy Spirit (2.13.145,151), On the Christian Faith (1.14.86 and 3.4.31), and Concerning Repentance (1.8.35; Schaff and Wace, 10:133,134,216,247,335). Didymus, who died A.D. 398, is also a witness to the genuineness of the verses (Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189), as is perhaps Asterius after 341.
Patristic writers from the fifth century that authenticate the verses include Jerome, noted above, who died A.D. 420, Leo (who died ! 461) in his Letters (9.2 and 120.2; Schaff and Wace, 1969, 12:8,88 ), and ChryÂsosÂtom (who died A.D. 407) in his Homilies on First Corinthians (38.5; Schaff, 1969, 12:229). Additional witnesses include SeÂveriÂan (after 408 ), Marcus-Eremita (after 430), Nestorius (after 451), and Augustine (after 455). These witnesses to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 from patristic writers is exceptional.
The evidence for inclusion that comes from the ancient versions is also diverse and weighty—entailing a wide spectrum of versions and geographical locations. Several Old Latin/Itala manuscripts contain it. Though Jerome repeated the view that the verses were absent in some Greek manuscripts—a circumstance used by those who support exclusion—he actually included them in his fourth century Latin Vulgate (and, as noted above, quoted verse 14 in his own writings). The verses are found in the Old Syriac (Curetonian) as well as the Pershetta (spelling changed i to e to allow posting) and later Syriac (Palestinian and Harclean). The Coptic versions that have it are the Sahidic, Bohairic, and FayÂyumic, ranging from the third to the sixth centuries. The Gothic version (fourth century) has verses 9-11. The verses are also found in the Armenian, Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic versions.
What must the unbiased observer conclude from these details? All told, the cumulative external evidence that documents the genuineness of verses 9-20, from Greek manuscripts, patristic citations, and ancient versions, is expansive, ancient, diversified, and unsurpassed."
Log in to comment