Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
Dave Miller, PhD: In ascertaining the genuineness of a textual variant, several factors are taken into consideration. The external evidence of age and geographical diversity of Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic citations are examined. Internal evidence is also weighed, taking into account transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities. The latter criterion centers on the style and vocabulary of the author in the book, as well as the usage of the author elsewhere and in the gospel accounts (cf. Metzger, 1978, pp. 209ff.).
The most persuasive piece of evidence that prompts some textual scholars to discount Mark 16:9-20 as genuine is the internal evidence. Though the Alands conceded that the “longer Marcan ending” actually “reads an absolutely convincing text” (1987, p. 287), in fact, the internal evidence weighs more heavily than the external evidence in the minds of many of those who support omission of the verses."
Peter M. Head: "The two earliest complete manuscripts of Mark in Greek (copied in the fourth century) do not contain the Longer Ending of Mark and clearly end their text at Mark 16:8 ... The contents, vocabulary, and “awkward fit” of the Longer Ending in relation to Mark 16:1-8 suggests that this was not the authorial ending to Mark’s Gospel ... The Shorter Ending (found with the Longer Ending in an interesting range of witnesses) only makes sense as an addition to a text of Mark that ended at 16:8".
If you want to read about it at length from a respected Biblical authority (John MacArthur) ... https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/41-85/the-fitting-end-to-marks-gospel
Dave Miller, PhD: In ascertaining the genuineness of a textual variant, several factors are taken into consideration. The external evidence of age and geographical diversity of Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic citations are examined. Internal evidence is also weighed, taking into account transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities. The latter criterion centers on the style and vocabulary of the author in the book, as well as the usage of the author elsewhere and in the gospel accounts (cf. Metzger, 1978, pp. 209ff.).
The most persuasive piece of evidence that prompts some textual scholars to discount Mark 16:9-20 as genuine is the internal evidence. Though the Alands conceded that the “longer Marcan ending” actually “reads an absolutely convincing text” (1987, p. 287), in fact, the internal evidence weighs more heavily than the external evidence in the minds of many of those who support omission of the verses."
Peter M. Head: "The two earliest complete manuscripts of Mark in Greek (copied in the fourth century) do not contain the Longer Ending of Mark and clearly end their text at Mark 16:8 ... The contents, vocabulary, and “awkward fit” of the Longer Ending in relation to Mark 16:1-8 suggests that this was not the authorial ending to Mark’s Gospel ... The Shorter Ending (found with the Longer Ending in an interesting range of witnesses) only makes sense as an addition to a text of Mark that ended at 16:8".
If you want to read about it at length from a respected Biblical authority (John MacArthur) ... https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/41-85/the-fitting-end-to-marks-gospel
-
1
- Show all
