canon of mark 16

7/29/2019 Canon of Mark 16

1/33

Canon of Mark 16:9-20

Lesson 1

by: Steven J. Wallace www.RevelationAndCreation.com


2/33

The Canon of Mark 16:9-20

Is Mark 16:9-20:

HOLY SCRIPTURE?

FRAUDULENT?

Have you seen this in your Bible?

Later mss add vv 9-20 (NAS 95)

Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book

to a close at the end of verse 8 (NRSV)

The most reliable early manuscripts and other

ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20 (NIV)

when you see this insert Vaticanus & Sinaiticus


3/33

Some of the MostAncient Authorities?

Minority Texts

Alexandrian Texts (fromAlexandria, Egypt)

a small number of

manuscripts

includes Vaticanus,Sinaiticus ~350 AD

Wescott/Hort

NASB, NIV, RSV

Majority Text

Textus Receptus(Received Text)

~19 out of 20 of all Greek

manuscripts (+5200)

Peshitta (~150), ItalaVulgate (~157), Gothic

(350) seem to follow

all reformation bibles

followed (+ KJV, NKJV)

???


4/33

Four Kinds of Greek Manuscripts

1. Papyri

paper made from Papyrus plant (Egypt)

of those that survived, most only have

a few verses

+90 in number

some contain large portions of the NT (P45,

P46, P47, P66, P72, P75)

2. Uncials

capital letters, no punctuation/divisions

+260 in number


5/33

Four Kinds of Greek Manuscripts

3. Cursives

lowercase, punctuated

+2760 in number

4. Lectionaries

portions of scriptures read in church

services (Greek or Latin)

+2100 in number


6/33

ARGUMENTS

AGAINST MARK

External Arguments:

not in Codex Sinaiticus

(Aleph) or Vaticanus (B)

Clement and Origen show

no knowledge of the text

Internal Arguments

17 non-marcan words usedin the text

theological inconsistency

regarding Jesus form


7/33


1. Argument Against: claimed not authentic becauseit is not found in two of the oldest manuscripts(Vatican ~325-350 AD & Sinaitic ~340 AD)

Vaticanus not only leaves out Mark 16:9-20, but

also. . . 45 chapters of Genesis; Psalm 105:27-137:6;

the last half of Hebrews

1, 2 Timothy, Titus, Revelation (link)

(this is one reason why modern collegeprofessors tell their students to question theauthorship of these books! Rather, should wenot question the integrity of the few mutilatedmanuscripts that omit them?)
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/general.htmlhttp://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/general.html


8/33

John 7:53-8:11 is also lacking in the same twomanuscripts (with others)! Yet it fits Johnstheme:

masterful teachingjudgment entrapment/accusation sought by enemies light of the world Moses versus Christ

women this passage not only condemned scribes when

it was originally written, but continued tomanifest their spirit of error by their willful

omission of it from various texts throughout time!

The Canon of Mark 16:9-20with John 7:53-8:11


9/33

all of the ancient versions contain Mark16:9-20 which shows that it was in the

Greek copies from which the translationswere made (Peshito Syriac, Old Latin,

Sahidic, Coptic, all of which were in

existence earlier than Vatican and Sinaitic)



10/33

SIDE POINT: (B) is no Friend to

those who Oppose Baptism!

Those who oppose Baptism say Vaticanusleaves out Mark 16:16 and therefore you

cannot use that to prove that baptism is

essential for salvation Yet Vaticanus includes the Epistle of Barnabaswhich states, But let us enquire whether the Lord

took care to signify before hand concerning the

water and the cross. Now concerning the water itis written in reference to Israel, how that they

would not receive the baptism which bringeth

remission of sins, but would build for

themselves (Epistle of Barnabas, 11:1)


11/33

But Tischendorf proved to demonstration (Proleg., p. xx, 1

sqq.) that the two famous manuscripts are not here two

independent witnesses, because the scribe of B copies the

leaf in Aleph on which our passage stands. Moreover, in

both manuscripts, the scribe, though concluding with verse

8, betrays knowledge that something more followed either in

his archetype or in other manuscripts, for in B, contrary tohis custom, he leaves more than a column vacant after

verse 8, and in Aleph verse 8 is followed by an elaborate

arabesque, such as is met with nowhere else in the whole

manuscript, showing that the scribe was aware of theexistence of some conclusion which he meant deliberately

to exclude (cf. Cornely, "Introd.", iii, 96-99; Salmon, "Introd.",

144-48). Thus both manuscripts bear witness to the

existence of a conclusion following after verse 8, which they

omit (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm)

Aleph and B are not two separate witnesses
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm


12/33

The writing style is very similar to that of Sinaiticus.

Although there is not enough evidence to acceptidentity of scribes, "the identity of the scribal tradition

stands beyond dispute" (Skeat). Especially the

colophon designs at the end of the books are

remarkably similar, sometimes almost identical (seea comparison of the Sinaiticus colophon Mark and

the Vaticanus colophon Deuteronomy, here). It is

reasonable to assume that both codices have been

written in the same scriptorium or at least the sameplace at arround [sic] the same time

(http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/general.html#lit)

Aleph and B are not two separate witnesses
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/ends.htmlhttp://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/general.htmlhttp://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/general.htmlhttp://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/ends.html


13/33Vaticanus Foul Pla ?

It requires to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is

found to have been to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the

top of the next ensuing column to that which contained the

concluding words of the preceding book, has at the close of St.Mark's Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. He has

left in this place one column entirely vacant. It is the only vacant

column in the whole manuscript - a blank space abundantly

sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless

withheld. Why did he leave that column vacant? What can haveinduced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his

established rule? The phenomenon (I believe I was the first to call

distinct attention to it) is in the highest degree significant, and

admits only one interpretation. The older manuscript from whichCodex B was copied must have infallibly contained the twelve

verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them out -

and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam

rei. Never was a blank more intelligible! Never was silence more

eloquent! (John Burgon)
http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm


14/33Sinaiticus Corruption?

As many as nine other scribes tampered with the codex.

Consider the observations of Tischendorf once again. He "counted

14,800 corrections in Sinaiticus." (Codes Sinaiticus by Navida Shahid;

www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Religion/Islam/research/codx0894.html).Alterations, and more alterations and more alterations were made,

and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and

7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are

corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." (Which Is The

Right Version of the Bible; www.waynejackson. freeserve.co.uk/kjv/v2.htm). He goeson to say, "the New Testamentis extremely unreliableon

many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are droppedletters,

words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or

begun and immediately canceled (David L. Brown, Ph. D.,http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm)
http://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Religion/Islam/research/codx0894.htmlhttp://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Religion/Islam/research/codx0894.htmlhttp://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Religion/Islam/research/codx0894.htmlhttp://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Religion/Islam/research/codx0894.htmlhttp://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htmhttp://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Religion/Islam/research/codx0894.htmlhttp://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm


15/33

http://logosresourcepages.

org/Versions/uncials.htm

Several years back I went to the British

Museum, specifically to take a look at

Sinaiticus. To my surprise I discovered

that, while Mark 16:9-20 indeed wasmissing, it was clear to see that it had

originally been there, but had been

pumiced (erased) out. The space was

still evident in the codex and the letterscould faintly be seen.

My point is, it was there originally. I could see it with my own

eyes! It was at that point that I realized that the note in my

New International Version - "The two most reliable earlymanuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20", was not telling the

whole story! In reality, the verses were originally there!

(David L. Brown, Ph.D,

http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm)

S f h M
http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htmhttp://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htmhttp://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htmhttp://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htmhttp://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm


16/33

Some of the MostAncient Authorities?

Minority Texts

Alexandrian Texts (fromAlexandria, Egypt)

a small number of

manuscripts

includes Vaticanus,Sinaiticus ~350 AD

Wescott/Hort

NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV

Majority Text

Textus Receptus(Received Text)

~19 out of 20 of all Greek

manuscripts (+5200)

not older than, Peshitta(~150), Itala Vulgate

(~157), Gothic (350)

all reformation bibles

followed (+ KJV, NKJV)


17/33

NKJV (Preface)"The manuscript preferences cited in many

contemporary translations of the New testament aredue to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts

discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts,

especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts,is due to the greater age of these documents.

However, in spite of the age of the materials, some

scholars have shown reasons to doubt the faithfulness

of these manuscripts to the original text, since theyoften disagree with one another and show other signs

of unreliability. The Greek text obtained by using this

minority of sources and related papyri is known as the

Alexandrian Text. . . .


18/33

NKJV (Preface)

. . . On the other hand, the great majority of existingmanuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even

though many are later, and none is earlier than the

fifth century, most of their readings are verified by

ancient papyri, ancient versions, and quotations in thewritings of the early church fathers. This large body of

manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying

the King James Bible. It is the Geek text used by

Greek-speaking churches for many centuries,

presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received

Text, of the New Testament.


19/33


2. Argument Against: Clement ofAlexandria and Origen show no

knowledge of the existence of these

verses

If I never quote from Zechariah 14 in mywritings, does that mean Zechariah 14 was

not in existence in my day? Clement believed baptism was essential for

salvation


20/33

150-200 AD CLEMENT

"Being baptized, we are illuminated;illuminated, we become sons; being made sons,we are made perfect; being made perfect, weare made immortal... This work is variously

called grace, and illumination, and perfection,and washing. Washing, by which we cleanseaway our sins; grace, by which the penaltiesaccruing to transgressions are remitted; and

illumination, by which that holy light ofsalvation is beheld, that is, by which we seeGod clearly." (Clement of Alexandria, "TheInstructor," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg.

215)


21/33


2. Argument Against: Clement ofAlexandria and Origen show noknowledge of the existence of these

verses Clement believed baptism was essential for

salvation

Irenaeus quotes from this text in ca. 185 AD,

Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 inAgainstHeresies III:10:5-6, which was writtenca.185 AD (wikipedia.org)

Justin Martyer . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus


22/33


110-165 AD JUSTIN MARTYR

"He that, out of contempt, will not be baptized,shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be

reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lordsays: 'Except a man be baptized of water and of theSpirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdomof heaven.' And again: 'He that believeth and is

baptized shall be saved but he that believeth notshall be damned.'" (Justin Martyr "Constitutions ofthe Holy Apostles," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, pg.456-457.)


23/33


3. Argument Against: There are 17 non-marcanwords used

17 words in these last 12 verses are not found

anywhere else in Mark In Mark 4:20-29 there are 14 words which occur

nowhere else in Marks gospel!

who questions the authenticity of Mark 4:20-29?

In Luke 24:41-53, there are 9 words usednowhere else by Luke!

who questions the authenticity of Lukes ending?

41 But while they still did not believe for joy and marveled He


24/33

41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He

said to them, "Have you any food here? 42 So they gave Him a

piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it

and ate in their presence. 44 Then He said to them, "These are the

words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all thingsmust be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the

Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me. 45 And He opened their

understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. 46

Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was

necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead thethird day, 47 "and that repentance and remission of sins should be

preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48

"And you are witnesses of these things. 49 "Behold, I send the

Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem

until you are endued with power from on high. 50 And He ledthem out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed

them. 51 Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was

parted from them and carried up into heaven. 52 And they

worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and

were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen.


25/33


3. Argument Against: There are 17 non-marcanwords used

17 words in these last 12 verses are not found

anywhere else in Mark In Mark 4:20-29 there are 14 words which occur

nowhere else in Marks gospel!

who questions the authenticity of Mark 4:20-29?

In Luke 24:41-53, there are 9 words usednowhere else by Luke!

who questions the authenticity of Lukes ending?


26/33


4. Argument Against: A theological contradiction!Mark 16:12says, And after that, He appeared in

a different form to two of them, while they were

walking along on their way to the country. Thisverse may be problematic. Jesus rose in the

same body that he died in (John 2:19), though it

was a glorified body. This is problematic because

it suggests a different form. Jesus did notappear in a different form. He appeared in the

same body he rose in (Email 3/04/2006)
http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_16.htmhttp://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_16.htm


27/33

Mark doesnt say that Jesus was in adifferent body and doesnt deny that Jesus

physical body was raised!

He simply appeared in another form to these two

He restrained his appearance to these twopersons on a road in the country

Jesus was transfigured before Peter, Jamesand John prior to his death, why could He not

take on another form at some time after his

death if He wanted (Matt. 17:1, 2)?

After that, He appeared in another form to two of

them as they walked and went into the country

(Mk. 16:12)


28/33

After that, He appeared in another form to two of

them as they walked and went into the country

(Mk. 16:12)

If this discounts authenticity of Mark, then it

also denies the authenticity of Luke both

speak of the same thing!

Now behold, two of them were traveling that

same day to a village called Emmaus. . . So it

was, while they conversed and reasoned, that

Jesus Himself drew near and went with them.But their eyes were restrained, so that they

did not know Him (Lk. 24:13, 15, 16)

They compliment (not contradict) each other!


29/33

The Only Bogus Things In

Relation to Mark 16:9-20. . .

ARE THOSEARGUMENTS GIVEN TO

DISCOUNT ITSAUTHENTICITY!


30/33

Peter/Mark Connection

She who is in Babylon, elect together with you,

greets you; and so does Mark my son

(1 Pet. 5:13)

Mark worked closely with Peter, Paul, and Barnabas(Phil. 1:24; 2 Tim. 4:11; Col. 4:10; Acts 15:39)

Mark simply taught what Peter already affirmed Jesus

taught regarding baptism:

He who believes and is

baptized will be saved; but

he who does not believe will

be condemned (Mk. 16:16)

There is also an antitype

which now saves us

baptism. . . (1 Pet. 3:21)


31/33

No doctrine taught in Mark 16:9-20contradicts any other doctrine in the NT

Those in error hate this passage because

of its clearness Without Mark 16:9-20

the disciples are left in our minds as afraid

The Gospel appears unfinished the Great Commission would be left out (cf.

Matt. 28:18, 19, Lk. 24:46-49)



32/33

If you want to be

saved, obeyMark 16:16 today in

belief and baptism!


33/33

canon of mark 16

Documents