[JSM17]

Does it belong there? Or does it need to be thrown out, because of what Jesus said about baptism, many seek to dismiss the end of Mark, but the evidence shows that it should be there. So when Jesus said what he said in verses 15, 16 they belong there, and they are synoptic verses of Matt. 28:18. Some proclaim the great commission is calling us to go into the world and baptize people with the Holy Spirit, but I was under the impression that only Jesus could do this. Here are some manuscripts that are for and against Mark 16:9-20, you decide for yourself what belongs! Decide for yourself whether or not when Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved"should be there, whether or not you believe you have the command to go into the world and baptize people with the Holy Spirit thats another post.

In Favour of Mark 16:9-20

Codex Alexandrinus (A) - (5th c. uncial, Byzantine in Gospels)

Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - (5th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) - (5th/6th c. uncial, Western)

K (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)

W (5th c. uncial, generally thought to be Caesarean in Mark 5:31-16:20)

X (10th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caesarean)

Pi (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)

f1 and f13 (total of 16 Caesarean texts, 11th-14th c.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caesarean)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)

1010 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)

The Byzantine textual set

Some of the Greek lectionaries

Opposed to Mark 16:9-20

Codex Sinaiticus (A) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

Codex Vaticanus (B) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

304 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)2

2386 (11th c. miniscule, Byzantine)

[Marc]

Does it belong there or does it need to be thrown out because of what Jesus said about baptism?

Neither for it is too disputed of a text "no matter what is said in the text".

[m273p15c]

[grand_puba]

Here's a shameless plug for our sister site, regarding the same topic:

Critical Study Of A Disputed Passage
_________________
Have you read the Rules?

[Marc]

Hi m273p15c,

I would not use any text that is that unreliable. For this reason I never use 1 John 5:7 (KJV) in support of the Trinity. No, nor do I use John 14:14, in which the newer versions contain "me", to demonstrate the deity of Christ in that He is the recipient of prayers for "me" is a contested word. Since it is too disputed it is not wise to base such a major doctrine on this text or any other highly disputed text. If it is that important it will appear elsewhere - such as Christ receiving prayer in Acts 1:24, 25.

I fully agree that God's word will abide forever and that Scripture can not be broken, etc but that is assuming Mark 16:9-20 "is" Scripture. I'm not sure if you or anyone else here is a KJV onlyist (I used to be one) for they (I) would use the same arguments against those who doubted, rejected, etc 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV text.

- Marc

[JSM17]

Yes but what makes it unreliable to you?

[Marc]

Among several other things it is lacking in Aleph and B.

[m273p15c]

Hi Marc,

I don't want this to degenerate into another discussion on baptism. For the sake of getting somewhere on this point, I'd personally like to stick with JSM17's main question, "Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in the Bible?" So, I will not respond any further to the wisdom in using it to defend baptism.

[Marc]

Hi,

I accept the Scriptures as unbroken because I believe that "man" has added Mark 16:9-20. Therefore it is not Scripture (to be broken). I beieive this also holds true concerning 1 John 5:7 (KJV) and Acts 8:37.
For a ver very long period of time 1 John 5:7 as it reads in the KJV was believed to be part of the text but now most Christians understand it really doesn't belong there. How did it remain in there for so long?

The Scriptrue is not broken because Mark 16:9-20 does not belong there to begin with. We are discoverning more things about the biblical text (word meanings, archeology, and yes biblical manuscripts) all the time. It is simply a fact that this text is lacking in the earliest Greek, Coptic, Armenian, Latin and Syriac manuscripts.

[m273p15c]

[Marc]

I don't understand your question when you asked "To what did man add Mark 16:9-20". Mark 16:9-20 is what man added. They were added at the conclusion of Mark 16:8.

Man has continually been trying to alter the text. Spiros Zodhiates agrees with Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ Chapter 19) that John 1:13 was changed by the Gnostic Valentinians. Instead of "were" it should read "was" thereby giving another example of the Virgin Birth.

If the Virgin Birth was attempted to be discredited then salvation is fair game as well.

Furthermore, the case against Mark 16:9-20 is also quite clear.

Majority of manuscripts doesn't really mean much. The earliest ones do not have them. Manuscripts have to be weighed and not merely counted. The Syriac version discovered by Gibson and Lewis in 1892 pre-dates the Peshito and it concludes at verse 8.
In Tertullian's "De Baptismo" where he discusses quite a few passages in regards to the importance of water baptism "not once" does he mention the text as found in Mark 16:9-20.
Jerome in his letter to a Lady Hedibia wrote "omnibus Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum non habentibus" (almost all of the Greek codices lack the longer ending).
In fact, Victor of Antioch who wrote the earliest know commentary on Mark's gospel concludes at 16:8.

What does it say about God? The question should be is what does it say about man who "forced" these passages in there?

[sledford]

[m273p15c]

Thanks for the good point, sledford!

This is too long, but I wanted to answer the FUD for the benefit of others. ... I'm sure somebody much wiser, better educated, and more experienced than me has already done this somewhere, but please allow me to enumerate and name the arguments we have been discussing. Plus, I would like to further respond to Marc's objections:

• Doctrinal - The Scriptures forbid tampering on the level being discussed, which is global perversion of truth. The Bible's internal teaching promises the perseverance of the message. It remains "unbroken" and "incorruptible" (John 10:35; II Peter 1:17-25); therefore, it will always be available, understandable, and applicable. After all, that was the point of Jesus' rebuke. The Pharisees had the Scriptures, but they refused to accept its teaching. Since "the Scripture cannot be broken", the fault was clearly their own!
  
  

  Marc wrote:

  I don't understand your question when you asked "To what did man add Mark 16:9-20". Mark 16:9-20 is what man added. They were added at the conclusion of Mark 16:8.

  
  The answer is they added it to the Scriptures, did they not? Therefore, man altered Scriptures? You have accepted that Scriptures were broken and corrupted by definition, but yet you have refused the label.
  
  A man cannot add one thing to another thing and still have the first thing. He now has a combination, which is different than the original. Addition always changes a thing, unless the thing being added is nothing. Mathematically, we could express this by recognizing that: X + Y does not equal X, unless Y equals zero.
  
  Since you believe that Mark 16:9-20 seriously contradicts the plan of salvation, it cannot be called a zero. If you are correct, Mark 16:9-20 adds to the message. It alters the Scriptures, and by definition, the addition corrupts the Bible's accuracy and purity, breaking it. If you are correct, we can no longer make the application Jesus made in John 10:35. We cannot turn to any and every passage in the Bible, rely upon it to be God's Word, and apply it appropriately. The chain of revelation from God to modern man is fundamentally broken. We have to wonder if we still have the true Word of God. We may be reading heresy instead... like Mark 16:9-20, if you are correct...
  
  To sum this point up, "To what thing did man add Mark 16:9-20?" Answer: The Scriptures. "Therefore, how did he add to Scriptures with out changing them and by definition corrupting them?" "If that is not breaking it, what is?" To add to, is to change, by definition.
  
  

  Marc wrote:

  Man has continually been trying to alter the text. Spiros Zodhiates agrees with Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ Chapter 19) that John 1:13 was changed by the Gnostic Valentinians. Instead of "were" it should read "was" thereby giving another example of the Virgin Birth. If the Virgin Birth was attempted to be discredited then salvation is fair game as well.

  
  This change does not affect the message one way or the other. If John 1:13 should read "was" then this verse will then indeed attest to the fleshly, virgin birth of Jesus. Does that contradict anything? Change anything? No, it would be yet another handy proof text, but it does not add to or change God's message. What if the verse should read "were", as it currently does, which means it refers to us, the children of God? Then it would be yet another passage attesting to the fact that we were unable to save ourselves. We needed grace. Does that contradict anything? Change anything? No! This is a zero sum. It has no impact either way. We still have God's Word! Consequently, this example is not comparable to Mark 16:9-20, and is therefore irrelevant.
  
  Furthermore, you need to build an external, textual case that proves it is critically comparable to Mark 16:9-20 in terms of amount, quality, and balance of evidence. Can you provide a chart similar to JSM17's, found at the beginning of this thread, but for John 1:13 instead? I don't know. I'm just asking, but I would like to see it...
  
  
• Theological - The essential change of any portion of God's will is contrary to a loving God, Who desires our salvation, and Who has left the Scriptures as our link to Him. (Romans 1:16).
  
  

  Marc wrote:

  What does it say about God? The question should be is what does it say about man who "forced" these passages in there?

  
  Well, if you are right, it says that some men are bad, very bad, and stupid too. So, what? That is neither a revelation nor challenge to anyone's consistency. However, if you are right, it is a virtual insult to the character of God. My question still stands:
  
  

  m273p15c wrote:

  Anyway, what does this say about God, if He allowed such heinous false doctrine to be propagated as Scriptures for almost 2000 years!?

  
  
• Slippery Slope - If the text can be altered, such that it was virtually undetected for almost 2000 years, how do we know that our "modern Bible" is not also suspect?
  
  What you are saying is that the Scriptures have contained corruption for the vast majority of their existence, unbeknownst and deadly, which naturally raises an additional question, "How do you know it still doesn't contain such shams?" How do you know Acts 10 was in the original? What if we find an old text missing your favorite proof text? More importantly, how do you know we won't? How can you have any faith in God's Word at all, if you accept the possibility that the Bible contained injected heresy of the rankest order for the vast majority of the New Age?
  
  Furthermore, keep in mind that the people who say things like, "There is no longer any respectable scholar that holds the opinion that these verses may be part of the original Mark", represent the most liberal textual critics, who disregard anyone who believes in miracles, inspiration, or prophecy. The bulk of the work done to discredit the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20 was performed recently by people who approach the Bible with a fundamental prejudice against miracles, inspiration, and prophecy. They believe the Bible is a myth and conspiracy. If someone drinks from their same prejudiced, tainted cistern, how long will it be before they begin to reach the same conclusion as these infidel critics?
  
  
• Textual - The external, textual evidence favors inclusion.
  
  

  Marc wrote:

  Among several other things it is lacking in Aleph and B.

  
  For the benefit of other readers, Codex Aleph and Codex B are the age ranked designations for the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus; therefore, this is neither new nor additional evidence to this discussion, because it was already provided in JSM17's original chart.
  
  

  Marc wrote:

  Furthermore, the case against Mark 16:9-20 is also quite clear. Majority of manuscripts doesn't really mean much. The earliest ones do not have them. Manuscripts have to be weighed and not merely counted. The Syriac version discovered by Gibson and Lewis in 1892 pre-dates the Peshito and it concludes at verse 8. In Tertullian's "De Baptismo" where he discusses quite a few passages in regards to the importance of water baptism "not once" does he mention the text as found in Mark 16:9-20. Jerome in his letter to a Lady Hedibia wrote "omnibus Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum non habentibus" (almost all of the Greek codices lack the longer ending). In fact, Victor of Antioch who wrote the earliest know commentary on Mark's gospel concludes at 16:8.

  
  What is the date for the manuscript, which was discovered by Gibson and Lewis? You said it predates the Peshito Syriac, but you did not provide its date.
  
  Regarding the "weighing" of these "two oldest" manuscripts, they have several disagreements with each other, and they do not include several widely accepted portions. For example, Vaticanus is missing the first 46 chapters of Genesis, Hebrews after Chapter 9:15, the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, and Revelation. Do you refuse to base any doctrine on these texts? If these uncials are so valuable, how come your Bible is not an exact copy of one or the other? Why does it have anything not found in these two texts? And, since they disagree with each other in some points, which one are you going to use as the gold standard? ... I'm just wondering if you put too much weight on these two manuscripts, when it suits. Otherwise, where is your consistency?
  
  Regarding the "church fathers", you can mention all the people you want who did not reference the verse, but all it takes is one reference to prove that it existed long before the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I provided two, which predate the references you provided and the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus codices. According to your standard of "oldest trumping the majority", would not my two references trump your majority, since my references are dated earlier?
  
  1. Justin Martyr (100-165) - quotes a portion of these last few verses in Mark
     
  2. Irenaeus (130-202) - quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies III:10:5-6
     
  3. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) - does not
     
  4. Tertullian (160-225) - does not
     
  5. Origen (185-254) - does not
     
  6. Jerome (347-420) - does not

Remember you have to search everywhere to prove that something does not exist, but I only have to find one to prove it did. Instead, I gave you two - and they are earlier. So, who are you going to trust the majority, or the oldest?

[Marc]

To the first post,

I think your question ought to be asked to the person who started this thread. They assume it is Scripture. So they should tell us the standards to determine if this spurious text is Scripture.

I am well aware that people such as Irenaeus quoted it but that does not necessitae that it is "inspired". Why couldn't he have been quoting from a manuscripts that was spurious?

To the second post,

Scripture is unbroken. Now that we have seen the evidence it is not convincing that this text is inspired therefore it is not Scripture.

By "adding" 1 John 5:7 as per the KJV reading men attempted to alter Scripture. Mark 16:9-20 does not corrupt the Bible's accuracy because it does not belong in the Bible. The words of the Bible have always been in the mind of God. Since this portion never belonged in the mind of God to begin with it was never part of Scripture.

"If" the Valentinians were successful in changing John 1:13 it shows that a doctrine, a very important one, was subject to revision. One word was all it took. One word "baptized" is all it took in Mark 16.

In terms of the chart, it mentions Codex W. Notice the "Freer Logion" which occurs at the end of verse 14 that replaces 16:15-20. It reads,
And they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief are under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore reveal Thy righteousness now" - thus they spoke to Christ.
And Christ replied to them, "The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may inherit the spiritual and corruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven."
Since this Codex was cited do you accept this as the "inspired" words of God?

I don't rely on Acts 10 alone to prove that a person is saved before they are water baptized. I also believe that 1 Corinthians 10:2 and 1 Peter 3:20, 21 says the same thing.

I wouldn't say that JAMES Hastings is a liberal textual critic but in his "Dictionary of the Bible" wrote that Mark 16:9-20 was:
"not as part of the original of Mk".
Although not a textual critic but a firm believer in inerrency Christian apologist and philosopher Norman Geisler also does not insist that this text is inspired.

I cited Aleph and B because it is true that the earliest GrEek manuscripts "do not" have them. In terms of B it is more than a coincidnce that it just stopped at verse 8 and not anywhere else agreeing with Aleph.

In terms of the date of the syriac manuscript I am not sure of the specific date. Are you familiar with "The Restoration Quarterly"? That is where I received the information - one thing is for sure a person can not assert I received it from a bias source.

I am not saying it wasn't there what I am saying is the evidence points to the fact that it doesn't "belong" there. Furthermore, the earliest Latin, Armenian, Coptic, and Georgian manuscripts do not have them. Coincidence? Hardly.

[sledford]

[Marc]

Nice try Sledford,

They are making the assertion that it is inspired. I have given strong evidence that it is not. They then must supply the criteria for determing if a text is inspired. Based on what I have presented it is indeed a hopeless cuase.

As the sled just continue in your descent.

[sledford]

[Marc]

He that asserts must prove.

I did not initially assert they did. Therefore they must prove.

Get a clue.

[sledford]

[Marc]

Nice try again Sleddy

The evidence I gave was not refuted.

[sledford]

[Marc]

Refutation?

Do the eaerliest Greek manuscripts contain them? No
Do the earliest Armenian manuscripts conain them? No
Do the earliest Latin manuscripts contain them? No
Do the earliest Coptic manuscripts conatin them? No
Does the earliest Syriac manuscript contain them? No

Does the earliest known commentary of Mark cotain them? No

[sledford]

[Marc]

"The earliest Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and Latin manuscripts end the Gospel of Mark at 16:8"

- Bruce Metzger (Christian History Magazine, 9-17-96).

[sledford]

[Marc]

Is there any reason why we are too doubt Metzger here? Has anyone ever refuted him? You defended the manuscripts that were originally cited. Do you agree with what was written Codex W. Is that Scripture? Do you believe the two earliest Greek manuscripts lack them?

[m273p15c]

To answer Marc's latest questions: