The Last 12 Verses of Mark - Counterfeit or Genuine

[calvinsx76]

Over the last 300 years modern scholarship has begun to attack the many passages of scriptures as not being a part of the original documents, but were added later by scribes.

One of the key passages they reject is the last 12 verses of Mark. Un-believers such as Bart Erhman writes in his books that the last 12 verses of Mark were added by scribes after the original publication. In addition christian textual scholars like James White and Daniel Wallace also state this passage isn't part of the original gospel of Market. Modern Translations like the New World Translation and others will footnote this section stating "Not in the original Text"

Despite the Overwhelming Evidence from Manuscripts, Lectionaries, Ancient Versions and Church Fathers, the scriptures are under attack. What are your thoughts on the last 12 verses of Mark - Counterfeit or Genuine? Prove your answer.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg

 

[notuptome]

I do not find the long ending of Mark objectionable. I do support the contention that it was added with the original ending lost or inadvertently destroyed.

We must keep in mind that the original manuscripts are ancient. There are more fragments than whole pages of text to work from. God has preserved His word for us to use today and blessed in providing a translation that most people can read and comprehend.

While every passage in the bible must be read in context and understood in the light of the rest of scripture I find that the long ending of Mark needs even more care when it is approached from a doctrinal perspective. Use the long ending of Mark to support other passages of scripture but do not make other passages of scripture conform to the long ending of Mark.

I would not advise basing a doctrine on drinking poison and treading on serpents.

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Paul was bitten by a serpent and was not harmed. Paul was not intentionally playing with the serpent when that happened. We are cautioned not to tempt the Lord by such things as some would have us to believe.


For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[trofimus]

If the ending is not in any old manuscript, its probable it was added later.

Its not very natural that the gospel ends with words "because they were afraid". So there should be some ending. Which one? I do not know.

 

[Hizikyah]

If the ending is not in any old manuscript, its probable it was added later.

I agree with this.

 

[calvinsx76]

If the ending is not in any old manuscript, its probable it was added later.

Its not very natural that the gospel ends with words "because they were afraid". So there should be some ending. Which one? I do not know.

The issue shouldn't really centralize itself around the oldest manuscripts, but the most trusted manuscripts. Here's what I mean. In the first and second centuries there was concerted efforts to introduce multiple texts into the New Testament. Tertullian and Ireneus, but second century fathers wrote against the gnostics and go into great detail explaining how they were introducing forged texts and editing a number of the books of the New Testament. For instance, Marcion a leading gnostic from rome only accepted the gospel of luke and about 10 letters of paul. In addition he removed any jewish/or passages of law within those texts.

Despite having over 30000 manuscripts, there has to be a distinction between those used by the apostolic churches and those created by the gnostics, monitists and other groups.

In Terms of versions used by the Apostolic Churches, the last 12 verses are founds in the editions of the Vulgate of Jerome. It is found in the Peshito - which is the version of the Aramaich churches, it's found in the old latin version, the Egyption Versions, not to mention it is in the version used by the Alexandrian church, which is the church of St Mark.

Ireneus, a second century Greek father of Lyons, quotes the ending of Mark, specifically stating at the end of the gospel of Mark "". And it's quoted by leaders in the church.

If the passage was added, how did they get it in the greek versions, latin versions, the Aramaic versions, the copic versions. It would be impossible for a scribe to add it into all the editions. Unless he had google translator and had a band of ninjas that snuck into all the churches and added it in without anyone noticing. Highly improbable.

 

[Hizikyah]

IMO, it should be based on many factors, not limited to, but strongly including:

Age - Older is not always best but most likely prefrrable

Authenticity - Can it be aunthinticated

Scriptual support - (meaning, if one text is radically different, not from another version of its self, but from the rest of the books accepted, than there MAY be an issue)

Origin - Time, Location, Author, Historical Era, etc.

 

[notuptome]

It is a mute point. None of the surviving manuscripts are or proven to be in the hand of the original authors. They are all copies made by scribes.

One must trust God to use what we have to bring forth His word. The proof that men are still coming to a saving knowledge of Christ today is evidence that God has preserved His word for us. The Holy Spirit will not use counterfeit scriptures to bring men to Christ.

I suggest that you believe the parts that are above question leaving the contested parts to those who have no interest in salvation. The gospel of John and the book of Romans will give you are great foundation in Gods word.

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[calvinsx76]

I do not find the long ending of Mark objectionable. I do support the contention that it was added with the original ending lost or inadvertently destroyed.

We must keep in mind that the original manuscripts are ancient. There are more fragments than whole pages of text to work from. God has preserved His word for us to use today and blessed in providing a translation that most people can read and comprehend.

I do respect your position, but one of first things to recognize is that it wasn't until 1796, in Griesbach's second edition that we have the critics denying the genuineness of these verses. So this view is of late origin. Now that doesn't invalidate their argument, but the inquiry needs to then focus on the evidence of the passage.

The simple facts are that the verses are found in the editions used by the apostolic churches such as the Peshite of the Aramiac churches, The latin Vulgate of Jerome, the vetus latin, the Gothic, the Egyption Version, the Greek Versions.

Not to the mention, the testimony of the church fathers starting as early as the turn of the first century quotes this section of the Gospel of Mark as authoritive.

Now, if for some chance it was added, the scribe would not have been able to go all around the world adding it to all the editions...that would be impossible...Now if the original gospel of Mark ended with " and they were afraid" and scribes decided to add something to finish out the gospel, then you would have had various different readings for the ending of Mark, because there is no way they could have come up with the same exact 12 verses all across the apostolic churches.

 

[Bladerunner]

Over the last 300 years modern scholarship has begun to attack the many passages of scriptures as not being a part of the original documents, but were added later by scribes.

One of the key passages they reject is the last 12 verses of Mark. Un-believers such as Bart Erhman writes in his books that the last 12 verses of Mark were added by scribes after the original publication. In addition christian textual scholars like James White and Daniel Wallace also state this passage isn't part of the original gospel of Market. Modern Translations like the New World Translation and others will footnote this section stating "Not in the original Text"

Despite the Overwhelming Evidence from Manuscripts, Lectionaries, Ancient Versions and Church Fathers, the scriptures are under attack. What are your thoughts on the last 12 verses of Mark - Counterfeit or Genuine? Prove your answer.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg

I see from above you do not believe that the Bible is the WORD of GOD. If that is the case how can you say you believe in Jesus Christ and everything he said are nothing more than the WORD of GOD.

Do you really think that God would allow His words to be changed to the point that they do not get out the message he was trying to get out?

Where is your Faith? Rem...by Faith alone shall we ascend to Heaven. That faith is that Jesus Christ died, was buried and was resurrected according to the scriptures. OOPS!

According to the scriptures This tells me that His Gospel not only tells you and me that we have to have faith and believe in Jesus Christ but also the written word, the Holy Bible, (the very scriptures that tell you how, why, why and where he died.)

Again, one only has ONE choice (not multiple choices that can be used at the time of need),, I hope you choose well my friend.

 

[calvinsx76]

IMO, it should be based on many factors, not limited to, but strongly including:

Age - Older is not always best but most likely prefrrable

Authenticity - Can it be aunthinticated

Scriptual support - (meaning, if one text is radically different, not from another version of its self, but from the rest of the books accepted, than there MAY be an issue)

Origin - Time, Location, Author, Historical Era, etc.

I think you bring up some very good principles. Yes and your right, age is important because the early you can trace it back to the original publication the better...The only thing I caution on this, is we do have many very old fragments, but the problem is, we can't tell the origin of these documents, or who the authors were. Case in Point, the gnostics were introducing many forged texts claiming to be apostolic. They were also eliminating scriptures and editing a number of the New Testament Gospels. Marcion, on the testimony of Ireneus, Tertullian and Caius, all second century father stated that marcion was editing out any passages of scripture dealing with the law, and anything that sounded Jewish.

Now Ireneus, in the second century, who was a diciple of Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, who was installed there as a bishop by the Apostole John specifically quotes the end of Mark and those verses. That's pretty early quote in the second century on those verses.

 

[calvinsx76]

I see from above you do not believe that the Bible is the WORD of GOD. If that is the case how can you say you believe in Jesus Christ and everything he said are nothing more than the WORD of GOD.

Do you really think that God would allow His words to be changed to the point that they do not get out the message he was trying to get out?

Where is your Faith? Rem...by Faith alone shall we ascend to Heaven. That faith is that Jesus Christ died, was buried and was resurrected according to the scriptures. OOPS!

According to the scriptures This tells me that His Gospel not only tells you and me that we have to have faith and believe in Jesus Christ but also the written word, the Holy Bible, (the very scriptures that tell you how, why, why and where he died.)

Again, one only has ONE choice (not multiple choices that can be used at the time of need),, I hope you choose well my friend.

I am a believer and do support the word of God. I support the last 12 verses of Mark as authentic based on the evidence.

But I don't assume you are not naive to the point that many believers and non believers question certain biblical passages in scripture as not being part of the original publication, but added of later date. I am defending the authenticity of these verses, based on the historical evidence. The naysayers are claiming that these 12 verses aren't part of the original publication...God is going to perserve his Word, yet that doesn't stop sinnful men to attack the scriptures.

Historically speaking at the turn of the 1st century, many groups tried to introduce gospel publications claiming to be penned by the apostles such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter and others that were never accepted by the Apostolic churches.