Christian Chat Rooms & Forums - View Single Post

miktre · #3 (**permalink**) May 12th, 2009

The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark:
Now let's look at Mark 16:9-20. The Codex Sinaiticus (the text on which the newer Bible versions are based) does not contain the last twelve verses of Mark chapter 16. But were these verses originally in the Word of God? Of course they were. We will observe below how they were omitted in the manuscript that the newer Bible versions were taken from. First let's look at a verse that pretty much sums up how God feels about those who would take away from His Word:

Rev 22:18-20
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. (KJV)

A Monk in the 17th century admits to forging a page of the Holy Manuscript:
The letter count (number of letters in a column) on the page of the Sinaiticus manuscript that contains Mark chapter 16 is not consistent with the rest of the letter counts on the other pages. In other words, someone has altered that particular page by removing twelve whole verses, and then tried to 'stretch it out'! In doing so, that particular page would always be inconsistent with the other pages. The picture at right is not the page of mark chapter 16, however, it is a facsimile page from that actual

manuscript that was altered, the Codex Sinaiticus (Matt 10:17-11:2). You can see how it would be impossible to remove twelve verses from any given page and not have it detectable, for the pages run full, back to back, four columns, 48 lines to a column. To remove twelve full verses from a page without it being detectable, you would have to change every subsequent page until the end of the manuscript. You will notice the care in which the text is laid down in uniform order, try to remove twelve verses and not be caught!
A Monk in the 1800's admitted that he himself "wrote" the page of the Sinaiticus manuscript that contains Mark chapter 16, after that, nothing much has been spoken of it. That particular page of the Codex Sinaiticus has now been officially deemed a forgery.
The Codex Sinaiticus was supposed to have been written in the fourth century A.D., (it is not dated) it was discovered in part in 1844 and discovered in it's 'entirety' in 1859. In the various different printings of the new version Bibles taken from the Sinaiticus manuscript (NIV, NASB et al) the last 12 verses of Mark chapter 16 are either omitted all together, or included in [brackets] with a footnote challenging their authority.
For instance, in the 1986 NIV Witness Edition by Zondervan Corporation, Mark 16 stops after verse eight then a disclaimer is inserted which reads: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark16:9-20." After those words of un-assurance this particular edition of the NIV supplies verses 9-20 (not always the case in the newer Bible versions). The average reader who isn't aware of the dubious origin of the NIV would read that insert and not trust in the final 12 verses of our Father's Word in the book of Mark.
This is significant to say the least! For it is within the omitted verses, in verses [15-16] particularly, that we find "The Great Commission" in Jesus' own words telling us to spread the Gospel.

Mark 16:15-16 (Jesus speaking)
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed. (KJV)

Also in the omitted verses [Mark 16:9-20] we find:

In verse [11] a direct reference to Luke 24:10-11.
In verse [12] a direct reference to Luke 24:13-35.
In verse [15] a direct reference to Matthew 28:19.
In verse [18] a direct reference to Luke 10:19, Psalm 58:4, Psalm 140:3.
In verse [19] we have a Messianic prophecy spoken of in Isaiah 9:7, which Jesus Christ Himself fulfilled.

There are no extant (existing) Greek Manuscripts older than the fourth century, the oldest two Greek uncial Manuscript copies, the Vaticanus {B} and the Sinaiticus {Aleph} are without those last twelve verses, however, of all the others, consisting of some eighteen uncials and some six hundred cursive Manuscripts (those which contain the Gospel of Mark), there is not one which leaves out these twelve verses! Yet the newer Bible versions translated from the two corrupt Manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) omit the verses or include them but state that they don't belong (which is almost just as damaging). Why?

When confronted with the discrepancy, those who support the newer Bible versions (NIV, NASB, RSV...) will offer in their defense that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the oldest extant GREEK Uncial Manuscripts. And they would be correct in stating that fact, but what does that prove? Could it not simply be that the corruption of those texts was done in the forth century AD? Those two Manuscripts are the oldest COPIES of any Greek manuscripts that exist today, but they were supposed to have been written in the forth century, say in A.D. 330, but the original autographs (which are long lost) were written in the A.D. 40's - 90's, almost three hundred years prior to these two manuscripts being copied. And while they are supposed to have been written in the forth century, they were not 'found' until A.D. 1481 (Vaticanus), and A.D. 1859 (Sinaiticus). Hardly reassuring is it?
However, the Papyri, which were discovered in the 1950's, date back to A.D. 180-220 which are earlier than both the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (A.D. 330). The Papyri support the reading in the King James Version (from the Textus Receptus). So when they simply state that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are older than any other GREEK Manuscript they are being somewhat deceiving, for they lead the reader to believe that they are older than any other Biblical Manuscript - which they ARE NOT!.
Perhaps some day we will unearth a Greek Manuscript older than the forth century, then some day an older one than that older one... Or perhaps some day it will be proven that the Codex Vaticanus {B} (now in the Vatican, Rome), and the Codex Sinaiticus {Aleph} ( in St. Petersburg, Russia) are forgeries from the 14th century or so. If one knew the true nature of the Catholic Jesuit Priesthood, they wouldn't exclude that possibility.
And if I were a betting man that is where I would place my bet. For the omissions and alterations are very Catholic and New Age in nature and fit in quite nicely with the Vatican's ecumenical movement (interfaith harmony). But, in fairness I must say that at this time there is no evidence that they are forgeries (other than the page of the Sinaiticus that the Monk admitted to 'writing himself' in the 17th century). I wonder if the Vatican would release a fragment of the Sinaiticus for radio-carbon dating.... You see, if anyone had forged parts or the whole of those Manuscripts they would have had no idea that at a future time (such as today) that we would have the means to accurately date the animal skins that they are written upon. The Dead Sea Scrolls (Old testament Texts) have been dated by such manner.

So are we without evidence to support the readings of the KJV? No we are not. You see, there are other writings extant, made by the Church Fathers even before the forth century when the corrupt manuscripts were written. There are also other copies of the Holy Scriptures copied long ago into languages besides the Greek. Let's examine some of the witnesses that prove that the King James Bible was correct to include the last 12 verses of the book of Mark. Remember, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are the oldest extant GREEK Manuscripts. ):

The SYRIAC Version: The Syriac version of the New testament Scriptures is the oldest in its various forms: the "Pe****to" (2nd century), and the "Curetonian Syriac" (3rd century). Both are older than any Greek Manuscript in existence, and both contain these twelve verses. So with the "Philoxenian" (5th century) and the "Jerusalem" (5th century).

The LATIN Versions: Jerome (A. D. 382), who had access to Greek Manuscripts older than any now extant, includes these twelve verses; but this Version (known as the Vulgate) was only a revision of the VETUS ITALA, which is believed to belong to the 2nd century, and contains these verses.

The GOTHIC Version: (A. D. 350) contains them.

The EGYPTIAN Versions: the 'Memphitic' (or Lower Egyptian, less properly called "Coptic"), belonging to 4th or 5th century, contains them; as does the'Thebaic' (or Upper Egyptian, less properly called the "Sahidic"), belonging to 3rd century.

The ARMENIAN: (5th century),The ETHIOPIC: (4th - 7th century), and The GEORGIAN: (6th century) also bear witness to the genuineness of these verses.

This brings us to the early writings of the Church Fathers: Whatever may be their value (or otherwise) as to doctrine and interpretation yet, in determining actual words, or their form, or sequence, their evidence, even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions.

There are nearly a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices; while between A. D. 300 and A. D. 600 there are about two hundred more, and they all refer to these twelve verses.

PAPIAS: (about A. D. 100) refers to v. 18 (as stated by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc 3, 39).
JUSTIN MARTYR: (A.D. 151) quotes v. 20 (Apol. I. c. 45).
IRENAEUS: (A. D. 180) quotes and remarks on v. 19 (Adv. Hoer. lib. iii. c. x.).
HIPPOLYTUS: (A. D. 190 - 227) quotes vv. 17-19 (Lagarde's ed., 1858, p. 74).
VINCENTIUS: (A.D. 256) quoted two verses at the seventh Council of Carthage, held under Cyprian.
The ACTA PILATI: (2nd century) quotes vv. 15, 16, 17, 18 (Tischendorf's ed., 1853, pp. 243, 351).
The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS: (3rd or 4th centuries)quotes vv. 16, 17, 18.
EUSEBIUS: (A.D. 325) discusses these verses, as quoted by Marinus from a lost part of his History.
APHRAARTES: (A.D. 337), a Syrian bishop, quoted vv. 16 -18 in his first Homily (Dr. Wright's ed., 1869, i., p. 21).
AMBROSE: (A. D. 374 - 97), Archbishop of Milan, freely quotes vv.15 (four times), 16, 17, 18 (three times), and v.20 (once).
CHRYSOSTOM: (A. D. 400) refers to v. 9; and states that vv. 19, 20 are "the end of the Gospel".
JEROME: (born 331, died 420) includes these twelve verses in his Latin translation; besides quoting vv. 9 and 14 in his other writings.
AUGUSTINE: (Fl. A.D. 395 - 430) more than quotes them. He discusses them as being the work of the Evangelist MARK, and says that they were publicly read in the churches.
NESTORIUS: (5th century)quotes V. 20, and:
CYRIL of ALEXANDRIA: (A.D. 430) accepts the quotation.
VICTOR of ANTIOCH: (A.D. 425) confutes the opinion of Eusebius, by referring to very many Manuscripts which he had seen, and so had satisfied himself that the last twelve verses were recorded in them.

Dr. Bullinger, who prepared the The Companion Bible in the late 1800's utilizing the Text of the King James Version Bible writes: "They [the last 12 verses of Mark] contain the promise of the Lord, of which we read the fulfillment in Hebrews 2:4. The testimony of "them that heard Him" was to be the confirmation of His own teaching when on earth: "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of pneuma hagion (i.e. spiritual gifts), according to His own will". The Acts of the Apostles records the fulfillment of the Lord's promise in Mark 16:17,18; and in the last chapter we find a culminating exhibition of "the Lord's working with them" (vv. 3,5,8,9)."

(End of Bullinger's excerpt)

On final note on the book of Mark, it has sixteen chapters, and the chapter we have been discussing is the final chapter of the book. You will notice that the eighth verse (were the Codex Sinaiticus of the newer versions ends) does not end with "Amen." However, the twentieth verse (where the Received Text of the KJV ends) does end with "Amen." All of the other Gospels end with the word "Amen."
I think that more than satisfactorily settles the issue. The book of Mark ends just as the King James Version Bible has been saying it does since A.D. 1611! The real question becomes: "Why did the Manuscripts of the newer versions omit it? And just why did the newer versions choose to use those Manuscripts which were in the vast MINORITY and went against every other Scriptural witness of the original autographs?"
It is at this point that I would like to state that I do not believe, nor am I implying, that all the latter day Scholars had any bad intentions by utilizing the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Manuscripts (as well as others taken from those or the same source as those) in their various and many newer Bible Versions; perhaps most of them were simply fooled. And the same goes for many of today's Bible teachers that are unaware of this information and recommend, teach, study from, and quote Scripture from thelikes of the: New King James Bible (NKJV), or the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, Living Bible, The Word, New Jerusalem, New Century, The Message, The People's Bible.... We do not accuse them, and we judge no man. God knows!
However, there is a traceable line of men who are responsible for bringing these corrupt Manuscripts into the world. Perhaps we will come to realize why they did what they did as we shall learn who they were and what they believed in. And I hope that this study is not shaking your faith in the Scriptures, for the Scriptures are sound and reliable - that is, the Scriptures of the King James Version Bible are the uncorrupted Word of our Heavenly Father.
This whole sordid matter should give new urgency to the warning in the last few verses of the Bible:

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (KJV)

As well as the Old Testament warning:

Deut 4:2
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (KJV)

Look how the NIV rendered that verse:

Deut 4:2
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. (NIV)
*Can you see the difference here, the lessoning of the power of the statement, and the de-emphases of not changing the written Word of God? In the NIV version of the verse, it seems to the reader that it is making two separate independent statements: 1): Don't add or subtract from the things that God commanded; and 2): Follow God's commands. But in the KJV we see that we are not to remove or add anything from God's Word so that in having the whole Word of God we can know to keep all the commandments of God. There is a difference.