[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20  (Read 2843 times)

Margaret

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« on: February 21, 2016, 11:14:14 AM »

I have been reading Mark chapter 16 and  have found that some scholars, including scholars Westcott and Hort, have concluded that verses 9-20 of Mark chapter 16 are to be excluded from the scripture and not looked upon as genuine. I was told on one blog that over the last century and a half, scholars are divided over the issue. I would like to ask what most of you think about these verses. Do you believe they are genuine or not? Thanks.

Curtis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
  • Gender: Male
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2016, 03:02:34 PM »

I didn't even know that there was a question of its authenticity. It makes sense though, as it is quite different from the rest of the account.

Kirk

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2016, 02:05:42 AM »
I would tend to agree that those texts were added and are forged or counterfeited because there are no miracles today, so if this were true that would make Christ be one who spins tall tales. That cannot be. Plus it is not in the oldest and best manuscripts, so it must have been added later.

Alex Rowland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 95
    • The PuritanBoard
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2016, 02:45:17 AM »
The best evidence is the omission of these verses by the formidable Greek uncials, the Sinaiticus and Vati­can­us, which date from the fourth century. These two manuscripts carry great persuasive weight with most textual scholars. Additional evidence for omission includes the absence of the verses from various versions: (1) the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, (2) about one hundred Armenian manuscripts (see Colwell, 1937, pp. 369-386), and (3) the two oldest Georgian manuscripts that are dated A.D. 897 and 913. The American Standard Version footnote to the verses reads: “The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. The New International Version gives the following footnote: “The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.”

ray

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2016, 02:49:32 AM »
Hi , Tony has an excellent study on two of these verses, well worth your while reading.


http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/these_signs_shall_follow_them_that_believe.shtml

Robert Powell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
  • Gender: Male
  • "fruit of the righteous, a tree of Life" Pr 11:30
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2016, 05:48:03 AM »
The best evidence is the omission of these verses by the formidable Greek uncials, the Sinaiticus and Vati­can­us, which date from the fourth century. the two oldest Georgian manuscripts that are dated A.D. 897 and 913. The American Standard Version footnote to the verses reads: “The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. The New International Version gives the following footnote: “The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.”

This "oldest manuscripts are best" nonsense has been debunked before.

http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/OLDBEST.HTM

Only people who are uninformed think oldest means more accurate. It sounds good but it is deceptive.

Stan Pat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2016, 04:30:46 AM »
This "oldest manuscripts are best" nonsense has been debunked before.

http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/OLDBEST.HTM


Agreed, it has been exposed for what it is, which is sloppy, prejudiced and assuming.

Laura Tomlinson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
  • Gender: Female
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2016, 06:17:32 AM »
Hi , Tony has an excellent study on two of these verses, well worth your while reading.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/these_signs_shall_follow_them_that_believe.shtml

 )GoodPopst( Which explains how this all agrees with scripture perfectly.   )Bible-Red(

If Christians would stop listening to other people and started digging in the scriptures themselves, they could tell what is in harmony and what is a contradiction that obviously doesn't belong. Such as the apocryphal and books of Thomas, etc. But everyone wants to hear what the experts say.
 

Melanie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Gender: Female
  • 🌴"But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God. -Psalm 52:8"
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2016, 11:00:47 AM »
 :iagree:
  I would recommend this as a good place to start:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/the-ending-of-mark-16.html


ZeroCool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2019, 03:46:19 AM »
As far as I'm concerned, there is no question of the authenticity of Mark chapter sixteen. Its work speaks for itself. As does all the other authentic chapters of the bible. As opposed to books like the Apocrypha that don't ring true, harmonize or fit with the rest of the bible. People always want to disbelieve the things they don't understand. Like that there is a God, or that the earth is not flat or that there was a world wide flood.

James Heckman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2019, 08:03:28 AM »
Hey guys,
    F.J.A. Westcott and Hort are good scholars and they have excluded Mark 16:8-20 as genuine.  They looked at it carefully and questioned the genuineness of the verses. Sure, over the last century and a half there have been many scholars that have come down on both sides of the issue, but you have to respect Westcott and Hort.





Puritan Heart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2019, 09:03:19 AM »
Hey guys,
    F.J.A. Westcott and Hort are good scholars and they have excluded Mark 16:8-20 as genuine.  They looked at it carefully and questioned the genuineness of the verses. Sure, over the last century and a half there have been many scholars that have come down on both sides of the issue, but you have to respect Westcott and Hort.

Hello James,

Certainly, one would respect Westcott and Hort, if one were Roman Catholic.

Kindly read the following and then, I urge you to read up their historical involvement and their open sympathies to and warm welcome from non other than the Vatican.  The combined work of these two men were nothing more than a most useful tool in the destruction of the original King James Bible and thus, forming an insidious continuation of the counter-Reformation, which is felt by the discerning believer, to this very moment !  From where do you think every other translation besides the original KING JAMES 1611 is rooted ?  Read Final Authority, by William Grady.  It offers some interesting historical information.

Concerning the Deity of Christ:

"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

Concerning the Scriptures:

"I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

Concerning Hell:

"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

Concerning Creation:

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

Concerning the Atonement:

"I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 322)

"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...nothing can be more unscriptural than the the limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 430)

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).

Concerning Man:

"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are divine forms." (Hort to Westcott, August 14, 1860)

"Protestants (must) unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood."  (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)

Concerning Roman Catholicism:

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)

"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)

"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory . . . the idea of purgation, cleansing by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements."  (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. II, pp. 336,337)

Concerning the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Changes to the Manuscripts:

"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first. . . The difference between a picture, say of Raffaelle, and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences. . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked. . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol.I, pp. 138,139)

I also ask that you do the research yourself and then please list the number of changes they made to their new and improved Bible/s and then cross reference it to what we had been given, prior to their infiltration.  Every single new variation of the Bible comes through the Westcott and Hort worldview, without exception.  Check on who does the printing and then, on who owns the publishing houses, and the thin-red line linking the institutions becomes blatantly obvious.....

It is also common knowledge that they espoused firm belief in Darwininism and Evolution.  Their religion was nothing more than modern scientism... a very dangerous and slippery slope !!

James, there is a deluge of credible historical information available on Westcott and Hort and I would sincerely urge you to do some serious research on this subject before posting it as source of religious truth.  Please !

The Bible states clearly;

Rev 22:18 –19 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: 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.” (Re 22:18 –19)

In Christ
Alexandra
Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2019, 11:47:34 AM »
>>>
F.J.A. Westcott and Hort are good scholars and they have excluded Mark 16:8-20 as genuine.
<<<

The idea that they are good scholars is a matter of personal opinion. I'm sure you agree that the phrase "Good Scholar" is subjective. And my subjective opinion, based on my years of study of them and their methodology, is that they are actually "not" good scholars. At least in my definition of good and scholarship. Although I do understand that the word "good" is also subjective. Exhibit one is that the NIV is a product of the Westcott and Hort philosophy, and it is decidedly not a good translation.

e.g.: http://mountainretreatorg.net/searchit/searchit.cgi?westcott%20and%20hort


Quote
>>>
They looked at it carefully and questioned the genuineness of the verses.
<<<

Anyone can look at something carefully and still come to erroneous conclusions. The word "careful" is often in the eye of the beholder. Just as I can look carefully at Matthew chapter 24 and question the authenticity of that text. But then, what would that really prove except that it's my opinion, "if it was not backed up with undeniable facts or at least sound evidence?"  Where are the actual facts based on an actual examination of the texts? Was there any comparing Scripture with Scripture, examining the agreement, unity, compatibility, assent, total consistency and oneness with the rest of Scripture. Let's not forget, the Holy Bible also testifies of itself that it is true and trustworthy. Of course, that's not considered scholarly, but it is absolutely true. More than that, the actual Scholarship is found wanting once "carefully" examined.

Also, the "assumption" by most Westcott and Hort apologists is that these were great scholars and those who oppose them do so only because of ignorance or because they read something in a pamphlet or KJ Only article or something, and they assumed it was true. Of course, that's a spurious charge and usually not true, but it is what is making the rounds these days by proponents of the modern versions of the Bible.

Just saying some scholar questions authenticity profits nothing because it's just a statement "if" it is not backed up by solid arguments concerning it. Wescott and Hort compiled their own Greek text from the Alexandrian manuscripts, which was unpublished and clearly inferior to the Textus Receptus. That is what they used to come to their conclusions concerning the Bible. And their primary alleged evidence for the omission of these verses in Mark was the "absence of these verses from various older versions." That's not evidence or proof of it being non-authoritative writings, that's evidence of omission--Nothing more. And the omission is very easily explained in the "Oldest and Best" controversy. The bad documents, Georgian manuscripts that are dated A.D. 897 and 913. There's really no great mystery. Moreover, the doctrine of counting texts, or of trusting only the older texts is fraught with error and based on assumptions which "must" be tested in order to come to real truth concerning these texts.

Why they were absent from those older versions anyone can explain. i.e., The Older texts were corrupt, weren't authentic and weren't used as Scripture. THEREFORE they were preserved longer "expressly" because of that. The Oldest manuscripts that were authentic were actually used and thus deteriorated and didn't last. As a perfect analogy, it's just like the KJ Bibles I had early in life. I used them all the time and as a result, they deteriorated and are now gone. By contrast, the version of the Bible that I have but don't use is sitting on my shelf in perfect condition. While my KJV of the Bible is always worn, torn, falling apart and deteriorating until eventually it falls to pieces and has to be replaced. That's not a mystery, that's an explanation based on facts and experience. You should read up on this oldest and best controversy because (as saith the Preacher) there is nothing new under the sun.


Quote
>>>
Sure, over the last century and a half there have been many scholars that have come down on both sides of the issue,
<<<

Indeed. As in anything, there is always pro and con. But the question really is, which side has the abundance of proof that the text is either authentic or non-authentic. I say it's the Scholars showing that these verses are authentic and who uphold the Textus Receptus, Majority Text.

It's like the scholarship required in determining if the Apocrypha books were part of the Bible or not. It's based on sound scholarship, not on whether they were included in other texts. There's no, "we can't come to a conclusion." That's defeatism. We surely can know. Not only is the scholarship concerning the Apocrypha on the side of non-authentic, but reading the text itself, in harmony with the rest of the Bible, "it is demonstrated vividly" that those texts don't belong and have no agreement with the rest of the Bible. That is to say, once we start interpreting Scripture by Scripture. The same as the Scholarship required in reading the Mark chapter 16 verses. It proves they are in "perfect" harmony with the rest of the Bible and with themselves, and "Demonstrate Vividly" that those texts do belong and have a perfect agreement with the rest of the Bible--when we interpret Scripture by Scripture. The exact opposite of the Apocrypha texts. So while Scholars can come down on both sides of the issue, at best only one can be correct. ...and we "can" know which.


Quote
>>>
...but you have to respect Westcott and Hort.
<<<


No, we don't "have" to.

 In my philosophy, respect is earned and is not arbitrarily bestowed upon someone based on his schooling, reputation or expertise. First of all, Brook Foss Westcott Fenton and John Anthony Hort were Anglicans who weren't Christian, didn't believe in heaven nor that the Bible was the wholly inspired word of the Living God. That in itself clouded their understanding of the Bible, the importance of textual harmony, as well as their scholarship.


"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"i acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Kevin Wright

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
  • Always Reforming
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2019, 02:05:46 PM »
 )amen(  Oldest has never equaled Best. Best equals Best.

George

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2019, 03:53:40 PM »


Quote
>>>
...but you have to respect Westcott and Hort.
<<<


No, we don't "have" to.

Well you should. Why do you think the NIV is the most widely used bible version today? It's because it's the beast and people respect the author's scholarly writings and translations.

You know Warren, you are just too old fashioned for the church. Except when it comes to a literal rendering of Christian doctrines.

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]