Darron Steele
New Member
Hello Everyone.
As a non-Baptist, I cannot create a thread such as this in the Bible Translations and Versions area. If I understand correctly, I can create such a thread here, so I have.
Recently, we have been going back and forth over `salvation by completed baptism.' Those who advance this teaching are repeatedly going to the first part of "Mark 16:16." Of course, the second part of "Mark 16:16" is not favorable to that teaching. Nonetheless, I believe it is not appropriate to treat as Scripture what is not Scripture.
First of all, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts come to us from after the year 1000, and the New Testament was finished before the year 100.
The two oldest manuscripts that have an ending of Mark and the start of another book are Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus from the mid-300's. Neither manuscript has any text after Mark 16:8 before starting the next book.
Codex Vaticanus leaves room for additional material in case someone else wanted to add it, but evidently, the older manuscript the scribe was copying did not have anything beyond Mark 16:8.
In addition to this very telling evidence, a manuscript of the 700's, Codex Regius, symbol L, has a shorter alternative ending in place of the traditional embellishment.
The oldest Latin manuscript, which is manuscript k of the pre-Vulgate Old Latin Version, also has that same shorter alternative ending. This particular manuscript dates to c.399-400.
Turning to the manuscripts of ancient translations, we get some information. Text after Mark 16:8 is nonexistent in one of the two Old Syriac translations = Sinaitic Syriac. It is absent in some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic translation. It is absent in some of the Ethiopic manuscripts, and some of the Armenian translation's manuscripts.
The shorter alternative ending appears in the Old Latin, in the Ethiopic, the Syriac, and both translations into Coptic. Anytime the shorter alternative ending appears with the traditional embellishment, I believe it indicates the producer considered them equally credible endings -- and doubted both.
Manuscripts as late as the sixteenth century = 1500's place marks on the embellishment.
Jerome and Eusebius from the 300's report that the majority of manuscripts of their time lacked the traditional embellishment.
There are Christian writings before the year 140 beyond Scripture. I found that when they have references to the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ, the details are exclusively from Matthew, Luke, or John.
Testimony from throughout the manuscript period and all over the Christian world testify against the authenticity of that forgery. The only reason most modern translations include it is because it is historically significant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text Of The New Testament. Translated by Erroll H. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmanns, 1982.
MacArthur, John (author and ed.). The MacArthur Study Bible (New King James Version). Nashville: Nelson/Word Publishing, 1997.
Mann, C. S.. The Anchor Bible: Mark. New York: Doubleday, 1986.
Major, H. D. A., T. W. Manson, and C. J. Wright. The Mission And Message Of Jesus. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1938.
Trinitarian Bible Society. The Authenticity Of the Last Twelve Verses Of The Gospel According To Mark. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, undated.
White, James R.. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.
As a non-Baptist, I cannot create a thread such as this in the Bible Translations and Versions area. If I understand correctly, I can create such a thread here, so I have.
Recently, we have been going back and forth over `salvation by completed baptism.' Those who advance this teaching are repeatedly going to the first part of "Mark 16:16." Of course, the second part of "Mark 16:16" is not favorable to that teaching. Nonetheless, I believe it is not appropriate to treat as Scripture what is not Scripture.
First of all, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts come to us from after the year 1000, and the New Testament was finished before the year 100.
The two oldest manuscripts that have an ending of Mark and the start of another book are Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus from the mid-300's. Neither manuscript has any text after Mark 16:8 before starting the next book.
Codex Vaticanus leaves room for additional material in case someone else wanted to add it, but evidently, the older manuscript the scribe was copying did not have anything beyond Mark 16:8.
In addition to this very telling evidence, a manuscript of the 700's, Codex Regius, symbol L, has a shorter alternative ending in place of the traditional embellishment.
The oldest Latin manuscript, which is manuscript k of the pre-Vulgate Old Latin Version, also has that same shorter alternative ending. This particular manuscript dates to c.399-400.
Turning to the manuscripts of ancient translations, we get some information. Text after Mark 16:8 is nonexistent in one of the two Old Syriac translations = Sinaitic Syriac. It is absent in some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic translation. It is absent in some of the Ethiopic manuscripts, and some of the Armenian translation's manuscripts.
The shorter alternative ending appears in the Old Latin, in the Ethiopic, the Syriac, and both translations into Coptic. Anytime the shorter alternative ending appears with the traditional embellishment, I believe it indicates the producer considered them equally credible endings -- and doubted both.
Manuscripts as late as the sixteenth century = 1500's place marks on the embellishment.
Jerome and Eusebius from the 300's report that the majority of manuscripts of their time lacked the traditional embellishment.
There are Christian writings before the year 140 beyond Scripture. I found that when they have references to the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ, the details are exclusively from Matthew, Luke, or John.
Testimony from throughout the manuscript period and all over the Christian world testify against the authenticity of that forgery. The only reason most modern translations include it is because it is historically significant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text Of The New Testament. Translated by Erroll H. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmanns, 1982.
MacArthur, John (author and ed.). The MacArthur Study Bible (New King James Version). Nashville: Nelson/Word Publishing, 1997.
Mann, C. S.. The Anchor Bible: Mark. New York: Doubleday, 1986.
Major, H. D. A., T. W. Manson, and C. J. Wright. The Mission And Message Of Jesus. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1938.
Trinitarian Bible Society. The Authenticity Of the Last Twelve Verses Of The Gospel According To Mark. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, undated.
White, James R.. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.
Last edited by a moderator:
