Jump to content
Ronald

how do I defend the ending to mark?

Recommended Posts

So in Mark 16 there are extra passages that have been added to the Bible. Verses 9 through 20 are in none of the original manuscripts and are believed by nearly all scholars to have been added at a later date. How do I defend my belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God to muslims and non believers when they bring up this fact to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really have two options.

1. Ditch the consensus and root for Mark 16:9-20. You could probably find sufficient resources to convince you that their inclusion is legitimate.

2. Point out that Biblical inerrancy is a trait of the autographs, not the textual variants that have arise over time. Turn the tables and use the peculiarity of this textual case to point out the highly above average purity of the New Testament textual history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there is a third option. I could quote Iraneus who quotes the ending of Mark as we have it now. After doing some research it was silly of me to doubt the ending of Mark. It turns out the ending of Mark has clearly existed since at least the second century. Here is Iraneus in 177ad:" Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;"There are also others who quote the end of Mark. The only problem is we don't have it in our earliest manuscripts, which is okay because it's been quoted like crazy in early centuries. God forgive my disbelief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, there is a third option. I could quote Iraneus who quotes the ending of Mark as we have it now. After doing some research it was silly of me to doubt the ending of Mark. It turns out the ending of Mark has clearly existed since at least the second century. Here is Iraneus in 177ad:" Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;"There are also others who quote the end of Mark. The only problem is we don't have it in our earliest manuscripts, which is okay because it's been quoted like crazy in early centuries. God forgive my disbelief.
I thought that some scholars also believe that a scribe added the ending of Mark to the writings of St. Irenaeus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever played Chinese whispers? When you get around the circle, "I went to the mall last night" has turned into "I rented tall for a fight". Ever played it in writing with many people? A messy "get" gets re-written as a "got", etc. Well, the Biblical languages are even more similar. What is infallible is the original manuscripts, which we no longer have. It is a testament to the providence of God AND the inerrancy of Scripture that the manuscripts (copies) agree as much as they do, so that you can count the disputed verses on your hands. I would recommend a Christian called "James White" on these issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to defend this, is to go to your Muslim or Hindu friend that is sick, lay hands on them, and heal them in Jesus' name. Fulfill the text of Mark:

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.

 

Do you believe in Jesus Christ?  Do you have faith in Him? He is faithful to fulfill his promises- I encourage you to act on them. The gospel comes to the world with POWER, not just in Word. Blessings- John- youthtruthusa.com 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I wouldn't recommend that approach.

 


So in Mark 16 there are extra passages that have been added to the Bible. Verses 9 through 20 are in none of the original manuscripts and are believed by nearly all scholars to have been added at a later date. How do I defend my belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God to muslims and non believers when they bring up this fact to me?

 

Tell them that Biblical inerrancy means the original manuscripts are inerrant. That's the standard/majority view on the topic - what Mark originally wrote was free from error but not later additions/modifications.

 

You'd run into other problems if you said any of the modern english translations were inerrant, not just the ending to Mark 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in Mark 16 there are extra passages that have been added to the Bible. Verses 9 through 20 are in none of the original manuscripts and are believed by nearly all scholars to have been added at a later date. How do I defend my belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God to muslims and non believers when they bring up this fact to me?

There are not 'extra' passages in the Gospel of Mark, however there are 'fewer' passages in codexes 'Aleph' (Sinaiticus) and "B" (Vaticanus), they being the most corrupted MSS, found in the hub of the isolated occultic centers, Alexandria and Rome.  The Roman "B" was copied over/replaced in certain places even by a 15th century scribal/monk hand.  Both of those two MSS, basically singular derivatives, are altered, changed and erased in thousands of places, and are most likely part of the ecumentical Bibles fosterd by Eusebius at the behest of Constantine.  They call these so-called 'emendations' 'corrections', but in reality they are direct and purposeful alterations to distort the Word, as was predicted to happen.

 

These books and sources demonstrate unequivocally that Mark 16:9-20 are original:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=lYHF-HUMNJUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=2gYQAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

http://www.lamblion.net/Bible%20Tools/Charts/patristic_comparison_chart.html

 

Here is a quote:

 

"Most of the existing evidence supports the genuiness of Mark 16:9-20.

 

A. The Evidence of the Greek Manuscripts Showing the Genuineness of Mark 16:9-20. As mentioned before, here is the manuscript evidence.

 

B. Ten Early Bible Versions that Support the Genuineness of Mark 16:9-20. Here is a list of ten early Bible versions supporting the last twelve verses of Mark. We are finally getting down to the documentation, and Burgon has it. He certainly does. These are early Bible versions. All ten of these early versions contain Mark 16:9-20 without any doubt cast upon them at all. "B" and "Aleph" do not have Mark 16:9-20. Whom do you believe? Where did these early versions get these verses? Obviously from the original Gospel of Mark which contained them.

 

C. Nineteen Early Church Fathers Who Supported the Genuineness of Mark 16:9-20. These Church Fathers were leaders of the churches who wrote letters to their respective churches. In these letters, they would either quote various verses exactly, or make allusion to some Bible verse. This yields evidence as to what Greek text they held in their hands as they quoted from, or alluded to the New Testament. These men were from all different places in the Church world of their day. This evidence is found in THE LAST 12 VERSES OF MARK (pages 19-31) by Dean John William Burgon (BFT #1139, 350 pages). Where did these Church Fathers get these verses that they either quoted or alluded to? How could they manufacture them if they were not there in their copies of the Gospel of Mark? Remember now, it is not just the Church Fathers that vindicate Mark 16:9-20, but also every known lectionary. In addition, it is eighteen of the uncial manuscripts and in 600 of the cursive manuscripts. It is extremely strange that it is omitted from "B" and "Aleph"! Add ten early versions and now nineteen early Church Fathers, and the evidence is overwhelming!

 

2. The Nineteen Early Church Fathers Vindicating Mark 16:9-20 Grouped by Locations. The location of these nineteen early Church Fathers is important, too. The Westcott and Hort false theory teaches that there was collusion on the part of those who copied the manuscripts and that they all had duplicate copies of the Textus Receptus. But how could there be collusion when they were all working in such widely separated areas? Here are these same nineteen early Church Fathers bearing witness to Mark 16:9-20 grouped by their locations. Dean Burgon, with very incisive language and methods, takes up each of the above seven Church Fathers who are generally taken to be hostile critics so far as Mark 16:9-20 is concerned. Before he is finished, Burgon shows each of the seven to be favorable critics instead." - http://www.amazon.com/William-Burgons-Vindication-Twelve-Verses/dp/1568480199

 

Of course, much more may be given and evidenced of the falseness of the Codexes 'Aleph' and 'B', upon request.

Edited by hypakoe doulos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever played Chinese whispers? When you get around the circle, "I went to the mall last night" has turned into "I rented tall for a fight". Ever played it in writing with many people? A messy "get" gets re-written as a "got", etc. Well, the Biblical languages are even more similar. What is infallible is the original manuscripts, which we no longer have. It is a testament to the providence of God AND the inerrancy of Scripture that the manuscripts (copies) agree as much as they do, so that you can count the disputed verses on your hands. I would recommend a Christian called "James White" on these issues.

 

My avatar is suddenly relevant. :D

 

The link below is James White's presentation on the reliability of the New Testament text. It's been a while since I've watched all of it so I don't know if he directly addresses Mark 16, but even if it doesn't directly address the end of Mark (as well as the Pericope Adulterae) I still think it will be helpful while considering the topic at hand. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI

Edited by Atrides7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Church Fathers venerated the ending of Mark and the inclusion into the community of Christ is what makes a written-text into Holy Scripture. I am not particularly concerned if the Apostle Mark wrote it or not.

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×