Have
you ever wondered about why in the footnotes your Bible might say the oldest manuscripts
and some other authorities omit verses 9 to the end? The reliability of Mark 16:9-20 is supported
by an abundance of evidence. The alleged
controversy comes from textual critics who elevate the two of the oldest
manuscripts over others (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). What the critics fail to
mention is that three out of five of the oldest manuscripts include verses
9-20, and that is just the manuscripts in the original Koine Greek. There are
many translations in other languages that include verses 9-20 including the
Coptic, Egyptian, and Ethiopic amongst others. All of these predate the fourth
century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as they appeared slightly after the first
century A.D.
In
addition, there is evidence that some church fathers, which include Irenaeus,
quote Mark 16:9-20 which affirms that this passage was accepted Scripture in
the early years of the church. The Vaticanus is not without some troubles
outside of Mark, as well. It is noted as leaving out parts of Hebrews, James,
John’s Letters, Peter’s Letters, Jude, and Revelation. Vaticanus also contains
some uninspired Apocryphal writings such as Tobit and Ecclesiasticus. The
Sinaiticus also includes a blank spot after verse 8 in which verse 9-20 would
fit.
In
conclusion, sources such as older manuscripts and the church fathers confirm
that Mark 16:9-20 is inspired, written by Mark, and belongs in the New
Testament. The elevation of two manuscripts with clear problems should not be
considered a problem for New Testament Christians. It only presents a problem
for those who cannot accept the teaching that is confirmed in this passage, and
for that matter, in the rest of the New Testament.
Grace and Peace,
Ryan
Comments
Post a Comment