Canon of Mark 16:9-20

1
Canon of Mark 169-20

• Lesson 1

by Steven J. Wallace www.RevelationAndCreation.
com
2
The Canon of Mark 169-20

• Is Mark 169-20
• HOLY SCRIPTURE?
• FRAUDULENT?
• Have you seen this in your Bible?
• Later mss add vv 9-20 (NAS 95)
• Some of the most ancient authorities bring the
  book to a close at the end of verse 8 (NRSV)
• The most reliable early manuscripts and other
  ancient witnesses do not have Mark 169-20 (NIV)

insert Vaticanus Sinaiticus
when you see this
3
Some of the Most Ancient Authorities?
???

• Minority Texts
• Alexandrian Texts (from Alexandria, Egypt)
• a small number of manuscripts
• includes Vaticanus, Sinaiticus 350 AD
• Wescott/Hort
• NASB, NIV, RSV

• Majority Text
• Textus Receptus (Received Text)
• 19 out of 20 of all Greek manuscripts (5200)
• Peshitta (150), Itala Vulgate (157), Gothic
  (350) seem to follow
• all reformation bibles followed ( KJV, NKJV)

4
Four Kinds of Greek Manuscripts

• Papyri
• paper made from Papyrus plant (Egypt)
• of those that survived, most only have a few
  verses
• 90 in number
• some contain large portions of the NT (P45, P46,
  P47, P66, P72, P75)
• Uncials
• capital letters, no punctuation/divisions
• 260 in number

5
Four Kinds of Greek Manuscripts

• Cursives
• lowercase, punctuated
• 2760 in number
• Lectionaries
• portions of scriptures read in church services
  (Greek or Latin)
• 2100 in number

6
ARGUMENTS AGAINST MARK

• External Arguments
• not in Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) or Vaticanus (B)
• Clement and Origen show no knowledge of the text
• Internal Arguments
• 17 non-marcan words used in the text
• theological inconsistency regarding Jesus form

7
The Canon of Mark 169-20

• Argument Against claimed not authentic because
  it is not found in two of the oldest
  manuscripts (Vatican 325-350 AD Sinaitic 340
  AD)
• Vaticanus not only leaves out Mark 169-20, but
  also. . .
• 45 chapters of Genesis Psalm 10527-1376 the
  last half of Hebrews
• 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, Revelation (link)
• (this is one reason why modern college professors
  tell their students to question the authorship of
  these books! Rather, should we not question the
  integrity of the few mutilated manuscripts that
  omit them?)

8
The Canon of Mark 169-20with John 753-811

• John 753-811 is also lacking in the same two
  manuscripts (with others)! Yet it fits Johns
  theme
• masterful teaching
• judgment
• entrapment/accusation sought by enemies
• light of the world
• Moses versus Christ
• women
• this passage not only condemned scribes when it
  was originally written, but continued to manifest
  their spirit of error by their willful omission
  of it from various texts throughout time!

9
The Canon of Mark 169-20

• all of the ancient versions contain Mark 169-20
  which shows that it was in the Greek copies from
  which the translations were made (Peshito Syriac,
  Old Latin, Sahidic, Coptic, all of which were in
  existence earlier than Vatican and Sinaitic)

10
SIDE POINT (B) is no Friend to those who Oppose
Baptism!

• Those who oppose Baptism say Vaticanus leaves out
  Mark 1616 and therefore you cannot use that to
  prove that baptism is essential for salvation
• Yet Vaticanus includes the Epistle of Barnabas
  which states, But let us enquire whether the
  Lord took care to signify before hand concerning
  the water and the cross. Now concerning the water
  it is written in reference to Israel, how that
  they would not receive the baptism which bringeth
  remission of sins, but would build for
  themselves (Epistle of Barnabas, 111)

11
Aleph and B are not two separate witnesses
But Tischendorf proved to demonstration
(Proleg., p. xx, 1 sqq.) that the two famous
manuscripts are not here two independent
witnesses, because the scribe of B copies the
leaf in Aleph on which our passage stands.
Moreover, in both manuscripts, the scribe, though
concluding with verse 8, betrays knowledge that
something more followed either in his archetype
or in other manuscripts, for in B, contrary to
his custom, he leaves more than a column vacant
after verse 8, and in Aleph verse 8 is followed
by an elaborate arabesque, such as is met with
nowhere else in the whole manuscript, showing
that the scribe was aware of the existence of
some conclusion which he meant deliberately to
exclude (cf. Cornely, "Introd.", iii, 96-99
Salmon, "Introd.", 144-48). Thus both manuscripts
bear witness to the existence of a conclusion
following after verse 8, which they omit
(http//www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm)
12
Aleph and B are not two separate witnesses
The writing style is very similar to that of
Sinaiticus. Although there is not enough evidence
to accept identity of scribes, "the identity of
the scribal tradition stands beyond dispute"
(Skeat). Especially the colophon designs at the
end of the books are remarkably similar,
sometimes almost identical (see a comparison of
the Sinaiticus colophon Mark and the Vaticanus
colophon Deuteronomy, here). It is reasonable to
assume that both codices have been written in the
same scriptorium or at least the same place at
arround sic the same time (http//www-user.uni
-bremen.de/wie/Vaticanus/general.htmllit)
13
It requires to be stated in addition that the
scribe, whose plan is found to have been to begin
every fresh book of the Bible at the top of the
next ensuing column to that which contained the
concluding words of the preceding book, has at
the close of St. Mark's Gospel deviated from his
else invariable practice. He has left in this
place one column entirely vacant. It is the only
vacant column in the whole manuscript - a blank
space abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve
verses which he nevertheless withheld. Why did he
leave that column vacant? What can have induced
the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart
from his established rule? The phenomenon (I
believe I was the first to call distinct
attention to it) is in the highest degree
significant, and admits only one interpretation.
The older manuscript from which Codex B was
copied must have infallibly contained the twelve
verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to
leave them out - and he obeyed but he prudently
left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was a
blank more intelligible! Never was silence more
eloquent! (John Burgon)
Vaticanus Foul Play?
14
As many as nine other scribes tampered with the
codex. Consider the observations of Tischendorf
once again. He "counted 14,800 corrections in
Sinaiticus." (Codes Sinaiticus by Navida Shahid
www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Religion/Islam/r
esearch/codx0894.html). Alterations, and more
alterations and more alterations were made, and
in fact, most of them are believed to be made in
the 6th and 7th centuries. "On nearly every page
of the manuscript there are corrections and
revisions, done by 10 different people." (Which
Is The Right Version of the Bible
www.waynejackson. freeserve.co.uk/kjv/v2.htm). He
goes on to say, "the New Testamentis extremely
unreliableon many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40,
words are droppedletters, words even whole
sentences are frequently written twice over, or
begun and immediately canceled (David L. Brown,
Ph. D., http//logosresourcepages.org/Versions/unc
ials.htm)
Sinaiticus Corruption?
15
Several years back I went to the British
Museum, specifically to take a look at
Sinaiticus. To my surprise I discovered that,
while Mark 169-20 indeed was missing, it was
clear to see that it had originally been there,
but had been pumiced (erased) out. The space was
still evident in the codex and the letters
could faintly be seen.  My point is, it was
there originally. I could see it with my own
eyes! It was at that point that I realized that
the note in my New International Version - "The
two most reliable early manuscripts do not have
Mark 169-20", was not telling the whole story!
In reality, the verses were originally there!
(David L. Brown, Ph.D, http//logosresourcepages.o
rg/Versions/uncials.htm)
http//logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm
16
Some of the Most Ancient Authorities?

• Minority Texts
• Alexandrian Texts (from Alexandria, Egypt)
• a small number of manuscripts
• includes Vaticanus, Sinaiticus 350 AD
• Wescott/Hort
• NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV

• Majority Text
• Textus Receptus (Received Text)
• 19 out of 20 of all Greek manuscripts (5200)
• not older than, Peshitta (150), Itala Vulgate
  (157), Gothic (350)
• all reformation bibles followed ( KJV, NKJV)

X
17
NKJV (Preface)
"The manuscript preferences cited in many
contemporary translations of the New testament
are due to recent reliance on a relatively few
manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these
manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and
Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of
these documents. However, in spite of the age of
the materials, some scholars have shown reasons
to doubt the faithfulness of these manuscripts to
the original text, since they often disagree with
one another and show other signs of
unreliability. The Greek text obtained by using
this minority of sources and related papyri is
known as the Alexandrian Text. . . .
18
NKJV (Preface)
. . . On the other hand, the great majority of
existing manuscripts are in substantial
agreement. Even though many are later, and none
is earlier than the fifth century, most of their
readings are verified by ancient papyri, ancient
versions, and quotations in the writings of the
early church fathers. This large body of
manuscripts is the source of the Greek text
underlying the King James Bible. It is the Geek
text used by Greek-speaking churches for many
centuries, presently known as the Textus
Receptus, or Received Text, of the New Testament.
19
The Canon of Mark 169-20

• Argument Against Clement of Alexandria and
  Origen show no knowledge of the existence of
  these verses
• If I never quote from Zechariah 14 in my
  writings, does that mean Zechariah 14 was not in
  existence in my day?
• Clement believed baptism was essential for
  salvation

20
150-200 AD CLEMENT "Being baptized, we are
illuminated illuminated, we become sons being
made sons, we are made perfect being made
perfect, we are made immortal... This work is
variously called grace, and illumination, and
perfection, and washing. Washing, by which we
cleanse away our sins grace, by which the
penalties accruing to transgressions are
remitted and illumination, by which that holy
light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which
we see God clearly." (Clement of Alexandria, "The
Instructor," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg.
215)
21
The Canon of Mark 169-20

• Argument Against Clement of Alexandria and
  Origen show no knowledge of the existence of
  these verses
• Clement believed baptism was essential for
  salvation
• Irenaeus quotes from this text in ca. 185 AD,
  Irenaeus quotes Mark 1619 in Against Heresies
  III105-6, which was written ca.185 AD
  (wikipedia.org)
• Justin Martyer . . .

22
The Canon of Mark 169-20
110-165 AD JUSTIN MARTYR "He that, out of
contempt, will not be baptized, shall be
condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be
reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the
Lord says 'Except a man be baptized of water and
of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into
the kingdom of heaven.' And again 'He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he
that believeth not shall be damned.'" (Justin
Martyr "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,"
Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, pg. 456-457.)
23
The Canon of Mark 169-20

• Argument Against There are 17 non-marcan words
  used
• 17 words in these last 12 verses are not found
  anywhere else in Mark
• In Mark 420-29 there are 14 words which occur
  nowhere else in Marks gospel!
• who questions the authenticity of Mark 420-29?
• In Luke 2441-53, there are 9 words used nowhere
  else by Luke!
• who questions the authenticity of Lukes ending?

24
41 But while they still did not believe for joy,
and marveled, He said to them, "Have you any food
here? 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled
fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it and
ate in their presence. 44 Then He said to them,
"These are the words which I spoke to you while I
was still with you, that all things must be
fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses
and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.
45 And He opened their understanding, that they
might comprehend the Scriptures. 46 Then He said
to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was
necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise
from the dead the third day, 47 "and that
repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in His name to all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem. 48 "And you are witnesses of these
things. 49 "Behold, I send the Promise of My
Father upon you but tarry in the city of
Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on
high. 50 And He led them out as far as
Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed
them. 51 Now it came to pass, while He blessed
them, that He was parted from them and carried up
into heaven. 52 And they worshiped Him, and
returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and
were continually in the temple praising and
blessing God. Amen.
25
The Canon of Mark 169-20

• Argument Against There are 17 non-marcan words
  used
• 17 words in these last 12 verses are not found
  anywhere else in Mark
• In Mark 420-29 there are 14 words which occur
  nowhere else in Marks gospel!
• who questions the authenticity of Mark 420-29?
• In Luke 2441-53, there are 9 words used nowhere
  else by Luke!
• who questions the authenticity of Lukes ending?

BALDERDASH!
26
The Canon of Mark 169-20

• Argument Against A theological contradiction!
  Mark 1612 says, And after that, He appeared
  in a different form to two of them, while they
  were walking along on their way to the country. 
  This verse may be problematic.  Jesus rose in the
  same body that he died in (John 219), though it
  was a glorified body.  This is problematic
  because it suggests a different form.  Jesus
  did not appear in a different form.  He appeared
  in the same body he rose in (Email 3/04/2006)

27
After that, He appeared in another form to two
of them as they walked and went into the country
(Mk. 1612)

• Mark doesnt say that Jesus was in a different
  body and doesnt deny that Jesus physical
  body was raised!
• He simply appeared in another form to these two
• He restrained his appearance to these two persons
  on a road in the country
• Jesus was transfigured before Peter, James and
  John prior to his death, why could He not take on
  another form at some time after his death if He
  wanted (Matt. 171, 2)?

28
After that, He appeared in another form to two
of them as they walked and went into the country
(Mk. 1612)

• If this discounts authenticity of Mark, then it
  also denies the authenticity of Luke both speak
  of the same thing!
• Now behold, two of them were traveling that same
  day to a village called Emmaus. . . So it was,
  while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus
  Himself drew near and went with them. But their
  eyes were restrained, so that they did not know
  Him (Lk. 2413, 15, 16)
• They compliment (not contradict) each other!

29
The Only Bogus Things In Relation to Mark
169-20. . .

• ARE THOSE ARGUMENTS GIVEN TO DISCOUNT ITS
  AUTHENTICITY!

30
Peter/Mark Connection

• She who is in Babylon, elect together with you,
  greets you and so does Mark my son (1 Pet.
  513)
• Mark worked closely with Peter, Paul, and
  Barnabas (Phil. 124 2 Tim. 411 Col. 410
  Acts 1539)
• Mark simply taught what Peter already affirmed
  Jesus taught regarding baptism

He who believes and is baptized will be saved
but he who does not believe will be condemned
(Mk. 1616)
There is also an antitype which now saves
usbaptism. . . (1 Pet. 321)
31
The Canon of Mark 169-20

• No doctrine taught in Mark 169-20 contradicts
  any other doctrine in the NT
• Those in error hate this passage because of its
  clearness
• Without Mark 169-20
• the disciples are left in our minds as afraid
• The Gospel appears unfinished
• the Great Commission would be left out (cf. Matt.
  2818, 19, Lk. 2446-49)

32
If you want to be saved, obey Mark 1616 today
in belief and baptism!
33
(No Transcript)