O Biblios*
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Mark 16:9-20
The current critical consensus regarding the last twelve verses of this gospel is that they are a spurious addition, since they do not appear in either Codex Aleph (Sinaiticus) or B (Vaticanus). That the conclusion drawn by scholars in this regard is utterly erroneous appears from the following:
Dean John William Burgon exhaustively studied the manuscript evidence on this in his "Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark" in 1871--abridged in David Otis Fuller, ed., *Counterfeit or Genuine?* Burgon goes through the statements of the critics of his day against these verses, and shows them to have been the result of shoddiness of scholarship; he evaluates the passage on stylistic grounds; he examines the church fathers and the manuscripts on this passage; he even examines the oldest manuscripts and finds that in Codex B, or Vaticanus, at this passage there appears after v. 8 "the only vacant column in the whole manuscript--a blank space abundantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless withheld." He draws the obvious conclusion that the scribe who prepared Vaticanus "was instructed to leave them out, and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent!" (op. cit., p. 67).
There is also the fact that, if we end the gospel at verse 8, we have a gospel to which the conclusion is plainly missing, a state of affairs that was not lost on those who had copies of Mark that ended at this verse. [The NRSV even translates a "Shorter Ending of Mark" found in a few manuscripts--a text Burgon justly criticizes as a late and obviously spurious addition (pp. 81-2).] It is plain that many of the brethren have not thought through the implications of what they believe about this chapter of scripture. Ryrie, for instance, notes that--
". . . If [verses 9-20] are not a part of the genuine text of Mark, the abrupt ending at verse 8 is probably because the original closing verses were lost. . . ."
Consider well what he is implying--that God could not preserve His Word well enough to get us the complete text of Mark without a few verses falling off the papyrus at the end!
"The evidence in favor of the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is overwhelming. The TBS publication (58) "The Authenticity of the Last Twelve Verses of...Mark" is an excellent summary, drawing mainly from Burgon, (14) p 36-40, 422-4 and Burgon's work cited by Fuller (33) p 25-130. See also Burton (5) p 62-3 Fuller (4) p 168-9, Hills (3) p 161-2, (38) p 134-4, Ruckman (2) p 132.
"The TBS publication -- see above -- states that only 2 Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B) out of a total of 620 which contain the Gospel of Mark, omit the verses. See Burgon, cited by Fuller (33) p 60-1. Moreover, Burgon, ibid p 67, states that a blank space has been left in B, where the verses should have been but where the scribe obviously omitted them.
"As further evidence in favor of these verses, Burgon (14) p 423, (3) p 169 cites:
2nd Century: Old Latin and Peshitta Syriac versions, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian
3rd Century: Coptic and Sahidic versions, Hippolytus, Vincentius, 'Acta Pilati'-by an unknown author, Apostolic Constitutions
4th Century: Curetonian Syriac and Gothis versions, Syriac table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Aphraates, Didymus, The Syriac "Acts of the Apostles," Epiphanius, Leontius, Ephraem, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine
5th Century: Armenian version (some copies), Codices A and C, Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Mercator
6th and 7th Centuries: Codex D, Georgian and Ethioptic versions, Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, Archbishop John of Thessalonica, Bishop Modetus of Jerusalem The TBS also cites the Philoxenian syriac of the 5th century as containg the verses.
Hills and Ruckman also cite Taitan (2nd century) as quoting the verses. Hills (3) p 162, (38) p 134, states that besides Aleph and B, the Sinaitic Syriac-from the same source as Aleph, 2 manuscripts of the Georgian version and 62 of the Armenian version omit the verses.
The Old Latin manuscript k has the "short conclusion" instead of verses 9-20. See notes for NEB, NWT. Burgon (33) p 81-2, explains how this short ending has been obtained solely from Codex L, an 8th or 9th century manuscript "with an exceedingly vicious text" (ibid). Hills explains the omission of verses 9-20 from the above hanful of documents as indicative of the work of heretics, especially docetists who sought to de-emphasise post resurrection appearences of the Lord from the Gospel record, ibid p 166-8, p 138-41.
"Burgon (33) p 49-60 also demonstrated that the supposed adverse testimony of ancient writers is spurious, resting on a quotation from Eusbius which does NOT deny verses 9-20. Berry's Greek text supports the AV1611."
Know also brethren that the foul Aleph Sanaiticus is double spaced all the way through the gospel of Mark to close up the space that it made by omitting verses 9-20! Who's fooling who, "oldest and more reliable" -- HOGWASH!
Dean John W. Burgon, one of the greatest scholars that ever lived, is cited by Dr. David O. Fuller in WHICH BIBLE?. Dean Burgon wrote, "I insist and am prepared to prove [which he did] that the text of these two Codexes (B and Aleph) is very nearly the foulest in existence," (Pp. 126-127) and "That they exhibit fabricated texts is demonstrable....B and Aleph are covered all over with blots -- Aleph even more than B....We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, SOLELY TO THEIR ASCERTAINED EVIL CHARACTER." (Pg. 93, 128) He goes further in saying, "No amount of honest copying -- persevered in for any number of centuries -- could by possibility have resulted in two such documents." (Pg. 93) Burgon also said, "By far the most depraved text is that exhibited by CODEX D." (Pg. 93) "Strange as it may appear, it is undeniably true, that the whole of the controversy may be reduced to the following narrow issue: Does the truth of the text of Scripture dwell with the vast multitude of copies, uncial and cursive, concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the marvelous agreement which subsists between them? [In reference to the Text Received which the KJB was taken from.] Or is it rather to be supposed that the truth abides exclusively with a very little handful of manuscripts, which at once differ from the great bulk of witnesses, and - strange to say - also amongst themselves [Codexes B, Aleph, D, and L.] ." (pg. 124, 173) "Here as you must see B and Aleph in faltering tones and with an insignificant following are met by an array of authorities which is triumphantly superior, not only in antiquity, but in number, variety, and continuity." (pg. 127)
3. The King James Version Defended 3rd Edit. Edward F. Hills ThD, Christian Research Press, P.O. Box 2013, Des Moines, Iowa, 50310, 1976.
4. Which Bible? 5th Edit. David Otis Fuller D.D., Grands Rapids International Publications, P.O. Box 2607, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49501, 1984.
5. Let's Weigh the Evidence Barry Burton, Chick Publications, P.O. Box 662, Chino, CA 91710, 1983.
14. The Revision Revised Dean John William Burgon, Centennial Edition 1883-1983, A.G. Hobbs Publications, P.O. Box 14218, Fort Worth, TX 76117, 1983.
33. Counterfeit or Genuine Mark 16? John 8? 2nd Edition, Edit. Dr. David Otis Fuller, D.D., Grand Rapids International Publications, 1984.
38. Believing Bible Study Edward F. Hills ThD, Second Edition, the Christian Research Press, 1977.
58. Articles and Reprints from The Quarterly Record The Trinitarian Bible Society, London
*
Allan O'Reilly
Southern Reprints
P.O. Box 313 Papakura
New Zealand 1995
pp. A2-16-17
raise: