- Mark 16:9-20
This week’s post is going to be done a little differently. One of the most
attacked portions of Scripture is Mark 16:9-20. This portion of Mark is
found in 618 extant manuscripts. The two manuscripts which they are not
found in are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are the two primary
underlying manuscripts used in every modern version. This means that the
evidence is overwhelming in favor of Mark 16:9-20, 618 versus 2. Keep in
mind that the modern versions are based on 45 manuscripts out of 5255 which
is less than 1% of all available manuscripts. This is why they can say that
this portion of Mark is not part of Scripture because they reject 5210 of
the 5255 manuscripts.
If your company promised you a salary of $5255 per month and then only paid
you $45 per month, you would scream. So why don’t you scream when they do
that to your Bible? In this week’s post, I am going to list the lies which
these modern versions print in reference to Mark 16:9-20. They get away with
doing this because they know Christians will never investigate anything
relegating all their theological thinking to their Pastor or favorite
theologian. Recently R.C. Sproul announced a major work in which he is going
to use the English Standard Version (ESV). Now many people like R.C. Sproul
and will now go out and buy one simply because he uses it.
Footnotes on Mark 16:9-20
-
(CSB) 16:9-20 in Brackets - [Some of the earliest mss conclude with
16:8.]
-
- (NIV) The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do
not have Mark 16:9-20.
(NASV) Later mss add vv 9-20 & Some of the oldest manuscripts do not contain
vv. 9-20
(Amplified) Some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain verses 9-20.
(ESV) Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20. Some
manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately
after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14;
one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: But they reported
briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after
this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred
and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other manuscripts
include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20
(HCSB) 16:9-20 Other mss omit bracketed text.
(RSV) Other ancient authorities omit verses 9-20. Some ancient authorities
conclude Mark instead with the following; But they reported briefly to Peter
and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus
himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and
imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.
(1881 RV) The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit
from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to
the Gospel.
(1901 ASV) The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities,
omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending
to the Gospel.
(TNIV) The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have
Mark 16:9-20
-
- Where Mark 16:9-20 is found:
- Men like John MacArthur and others make false claims that Mark 16:9-20
is not found in any old manuscripts. Once again when a person does not do
real studies which can yield truth they remain ignorant as anyone can be.
Mark 16:9-20 is found in many ancient manuscripts, in fact, 620 of them. A
very partial list is below.
-
- Byzantine Text (450-1450 A.D.)
- A 02 - Alexandrinus - Fifth century
- C 04 - Ephraemi Rescriptus - Fifth century
- D 05 - Bezae Cantabrigiensis - Fifth century
- K 017 - Ninth century
- Q 026 - Fifth century
- W 032 - Fourth/fifth century
- X 033 - Tenth century
- Delta 037 - Ninth century
- Theta 038 - Ninth century
- PI-041 - Ninth century
- 28 (Minuscule) - Eleventh century
- 33 (Minuscule) - Ninth Century
- 137 - (Minuscule) - Twelfth Century
- 138 - (Minuscule) - Eleventh Century
- 565 - (Minuscule) - Ninth century
- 700 - (Minuscule) Eleventh century
- 892 - (Minuscule) - Ninth century
- 1010 - (Minuscule) - Twelfth Century
- 1110 - (Minuscule) - Eleventh Century
- 1210 - (Minuscule) - Eleventh Century
- 1215 -- (Minuscule) - Thirteenth Century
- 1216 - (Minuscule) - Ninth Century
- 1217 - (Minuscule) - 1186 A.D.
- 1221 - (Minuscule) - Eleventh Century
- 1582 - (Minuscule) - 948 A.D.
-
- Where Mark 16:9-20 is omitted
- Aleph 01 - Sinaiticus -
Nineteenth Century Counterfeit
B 03 - Vaticanus - Fourth century
- 304 - Minuscule Twelfth century
- 2386 - (Minuscule) - Eleventh Century
-
- Early Patristic Evidence
(Revision Revised - Dean Burgon - page
423)
- 2nd Century
- Justin Martyr - Irenaeus - Tertullian
- 3rd Century
- Hippolytus - Vincentius at the Seventh Council of
Carthage 258 A.D. - Acta Pilati - Apostolical Constitutions
- 4th Century
- Eusebius - Macarias Magnes - Aphraates - Didymium -
The Syriac Acts of the Apostles - Epiphanius - Leontius - Ambrose -
Chrysostom - Jerome - Augustine
- 5th Century
- Leo - Nestorius - Cyril of Alexandria - Victor of
Antioch - Patricius - Marius Mercator
- 6th Century
- Gregentius - Prosper of Aquitaine- John of Thessalonica -
Hesychius - Gregentius - Modestus, Bishop of Jerusalem
-
- Early Bible Versions which contain Mark 16:9-20
- 2nd Century
- Old Latin and Peshitta Syriac versions, Tatian’s
Diatessaron
- 3rd Century
- Coptic and Sahidic versions
- 4th Century
- Curetonian Syriac and Gothic versions, Syriac table of
Canons
- 5th Century
- Armenian version (some copies), Philoxenian Syriac
- 6th and 7th Centuries
- Georgian and Ethiopic versions
Affected Teaching
Notice the words that these false versions use concerning their corrupted
manuscripts, “authorities,” “witnesses,” “early,” “ancient” and “oldest.” If
I were a new Christian, these words, when used so convincingly, would cause
me to instantly question as to whether Mark 16:9-20 is really part of the
book of Mark. They speak of the oldest Greek manuscripts but there are
Textus Receptus readings going back to the first and second century in the
form of church lectionaries. Their ancient manuscripts are the two made from
Origen’s Hexapla by Eusebius in 331 A.D., hardly earlier than the first or
second century.
This questioning of Mark 16:9-20 is also stating that God was unable to
preserve and protect His Word since man was able to add anything they
wanted. This is really an attack on the character of God. The Bible would
definitely come in second place when you have the church of Rome which
places tradition and ritual much higher than Scripture. So for them, the
adding of words by scribes would not be something catastrophic. However, for
the true Bible believing Christian, it is catastrophic because if scribes
down through the ages were able to add anything they desired, then we would
have no way of knowing what God’s Word really says in contrast to what was
added by man.
However, God has not left His children without reliable witnesses. He
allowed 618 manuscripts to remain extant so that we may know that Mark
16:9-20 is indeed part of the inspired Canon. God knew very well that His
Word was going to be attacked by the Gnostics and the intellectual community
down through the ages, including the times we live in right now. We can
choose to believe that God was able to preserve His Word for 1800 years or
we can believe that the word of God did not exist until two Roman Catholic
Occultists put together a per-version with less than 1% of the available
manuscripts. As a matter of fact, the actual percentage is .0085632 of the
existing manuscript evidence.
When we use the King James Bible, we are confident that we have the
preserved word of God. He preserved it in the Masoretic Text (Ben Chayyim
Text) and the Textus Receptus. We do not need the approval of some unsaved
apostate to tell us that we do not have the word of God in the KJB. It’s
interesting that in the prefaces of the modern versions they are always
comparing it to the King James Bible, but never to the other modern
versions. It smells like a well orchestrated attack on the King James Bible
by every modern version. Gee, I wonder why?
One quick question which I already asked last week. If you needed a heart
valve replacement and the cardiologist, while in school, was required to
study several books on this technique and the pages came to 5255, but he did
not think that the information in 5210 of those pages were necessary, so he
only studied 45 pages of the material. How confident would you be in his
abilities to perform that operation?
-