((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))
Perhaps you noticed this statement in your Bible reading this morning. Or maybe you knew it was there. Well, here's what you need to know. The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses don't include Mark 16:9-20.
Here's the really simple version. The Bible as we have it today has been put together from manuscripts that have been saved and protected through generations. Nothing we have dates to the time of Jesus but the Dead Sea scrolls went back farther than any previous manuscripts and were more complete (as I recall from my OCC days). So some of the manuscripts we had prior to the Dead Sea scrolls contained Mark 16:9-20, but when the older manuscripts were found, proved to be accurate and then compared to the earlier manuscripts there were some discrepancies. This is one, and another one at John 7:53-8:11.
Instead of just removing the text it was left in with this caveat, "these are not the most reliable."
So this is what I do... I only use these texts as support material, to help reinforce a passage that says the same thing, just maybe in a different way. I do not, nor do I plan on, preaching directly from these texts as they are not among the most reliable.
We can talk more about this later if you're interested. I'll dig out my notes!
Thoughts on the Bible, Church, life and living it to its full potential in Jesus Christ!
4 comments:
I did not know you were with Orange County Choppers (OCC). I have used Mark 16:16 before to make a point . I felt it was a vital part of the baptism statement and was true. We are almost on another weekend and its been a good week so far . Give God the glory ! Amen.
Good point Jack, but baptism is supported by many other scriptures, Mark 16:16 just supports what has already been established. If the only passage in the whole Bible that said anything about baptism was Mark 16:16, I'd be uncomfortable using it... such as, Mark 16:18. There are no other passages in the Bible that support picking up snakes and drinking poison but many people have created entire faith systems with Mark 16:18 as their foundation. Did it happen? Yes, Paul got bit by a snake and lived...but this passage was most likely added to Scripture by an eager scribe who remembered the Paul incident and thought it fit and not penned by Mark. It's Thursday but Sunday's comming!
Greetings Corey,
Perhaps no passage in the Bible has had more misinformation written about it than Mark 16:9-20.
The Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8 in a total of three Greek manuscripts. One of them is MS 304, which is a medieval manuscript in which the main content is a commentary; 304 may be simply a damaged MS which was rebound without being fully repaired. The other two Greek manuscripts which end at 16:8 are much older, from the 300's -- Codex Vaticanus (which leaves an extensive blank space after Mark 16:8, indicating that the copyist was aware of the absent verses) and Codex Sinaiticus (which does not contain the work of the original copyist from Mark 14:54 to Luke 1:56).
Something else you need to know before advising people to use this passage merely as support material: Mark 16:9-20 was used as Scripture in the 100's by Justin (160), Tatian (172), and Irenaeus (184), and was known to the author of Epistula Apostolorum (150). The evidence for these 12 verses far exceeds the evidence for their omission, in terms of age, quantity (over 1,200 Greek manuscripts attest to Mark 16:9-20), geographical diversity, and text-type diversity.
The NIV's footnote to the effect that "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses don't include Mark 16:9-20" is unbalanced and misleading.
In other news: you may want to check your notes and adjust the sentence, "So some of the manuscripts we had prior to the Dead Sea scrolls contained Mark 16:9-20, but when the older manuscripts were found, proved to be accurate and then compared to the earlier manuscripts there were some discrepancies." The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered mainly in the late 1940's and 1950's; Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus were well-known long before then.
For more information about Mark 16:9-20, I welcome you to read carefully the multi-part presentation which begins at
www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana
Post a Comment