Expert: Joe Norman - 9/3/2006

Question

-------------------------

Followup To

Question -
I have heard people say that Mark 16:9-16 is not in the oldest mss is this true and if not how would I disprove their claim?

Answer -
I apologize, but I am not clear as to what you are asking. I don't see a reason that it might be important how old that passage is. If you would like to gain a better understanding of those verses, I can help you, but I do not have the educational background to know much about the approximate age of a certain passage. Am I understanding your question? Please elaborate more as to what you would like help disproving and I am sure I can help. God bless you. ~ Joe

People try and disprove baptism because in some old versions of the gospel of Mark, chapter 16 doesn't include the command to believe and be baptized to be saved. I'm seeking to know more about why that is so and I've heard the oldest manuscripts do contain it, but was wanting to confirm it. If you can help then please do so.

Answer
Okay, thank you so much for clarifying your question for me. I do believe that I can help you. Mark 16:16 DOES belong in the Bible. Because it is missing from two of the oldest Greek manuscripts, and from some of the early versions, and because of certain perceived problems in the continuity between 16:9ff and the preceding context, most textual critics today question the genuineness of this section. They dispute it was part of Mark's original Gospel. It must be noted that some of these men concede that this disputed segment nontheless reflects the inspired teaching of Jesus. Also, the genuineness of the text has been defended by some very respectable scholars (e.g., Scrivener, Burgon, McGarvey, Lenski).

There are over 4200 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and only TWO do not contain these verses. Yet it is in many with great authenticity. The vulgate version prepared by Jerome in an early century includes the disputed verses. Many of the early church fathers in their writings quote from the passage, thus further indicating its genuineness.

Also, if we are going to use the TWO original manuscripts as proof that these signs are not for us today, then we must remember that other very important (and accepted) portions of scripture are also left out of the original manuscripts. Example: First 46 chapters of Genesis, Psalm 105-137, Heb.9:14 and 13:25,

Satan has always attempted to cast doubt upon the Word of God (Gen.3:1-5). He has continued to use this method. Even if Mark 16:9-20 were not part of the original manuscripts, other passages of scripture display these same truths.

Tell your opponents that they are calling God and Jesus liers by saying that the closing verses of Mark were lost as Ryrie claims. This is exactly what kind of scholarship is behind modern versions of the Bible. I believe from the massive manuscript evidenc, the early Bible versions support, and the early Christian Fathers writings quoting from verse 9-20 that we can put all our confidence in the ending of Mark as found in the American Standard and other reliable versions like the King James (1611), NASV, and NKJV.

I thank you so much for the opportunity to answer your question and pray that my answer has been helpful to you. If you would like any more help in your defense of the truth, please feel free to ask more questions. I will do my very best to help you. If I do not know the answer, I can find the answer. God bless you and keep the faith!

         Immersed Into Christ, Joe