CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20 CHURCH FATHERS TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD ~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to Mark 16:18 ~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20 ~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13 ~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19 ~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20 ~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in Mark 16:15-18 ~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20 ~ 350-420 AD - The "Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16 ~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular: Verse 15 four times Verses 16 - 18 three times Verse 20 - once ~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture. ~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and 19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel" ~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions ~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20 "WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS: 'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' " [*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ] ~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20 ~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 ~ 500s AD - Others include: - Hesychius 6th century, and - The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses. Source: Dean John William Burgon, "The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark", published 1871
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20 CHURCH FATHERS TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD ~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to Mark 16:18 ~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20 ~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13 ~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19 ~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20 ~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in Mark 16:15-18 ~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20 ~ 350-420 AD - The "Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16 ~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular: Verse 15 four times Verses 16 - 18 three times Verse 20 - once ~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture. ~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and 19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel" ~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions ~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20 "WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS: 'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' " [*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ] ~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20 ~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 ~ 500s AD - Others include: - Hesychius 6th century, and - The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses. Source: Dean John William Burgon, "The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark", published 1871
Evidence Against Mark 16:9-20 There are effectively just two Greek manuscripts that lack Mark 16:9-20. These are codices Sinaiticus (ℵ01) and Vaticanus (B03), two important manuscripts from the fourth century. It’s almost unimaginable that the copyists who made them were unaware of Mark 16:9-20, but at the end of the day, they left it out of their Bibles. Once we look beyond the question of ℵ01 and B03 against the other 1,600-plus Greek manuscripts of Mark, the picture becomes more complicated. At least 23 Greek manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20 also have anomalies like extra endings or notes that express doubts concerning the authenticity of these verses. One important fourth-century Old Latin manuscript has a short addition after verse 8 and then ends without verses 9 to 20. A valuable Old Syriac manuscript from the fourth century also ends Mark at 16:8. A Sahidic Coptic manuscript (probably from the fifth century) ends Mark’s Gospel at 16:8 as well. In 1937, E. C. Colwell identified 99 Armenian manuscripts of Mark (of 220 surveyed) ending at 16:8, and a further 33 containing 16:9-20 but with notes expressing doubt about the verses’ authenticity.
MSS evidence is only one type of evidence. Moreover, the omission of verses is not evidence of the verses being non genuine. To say so is a logical fallacy. The omission of verses is only evidence that the particular codice has omitted them. It tells us nothing of the genuineness of the verses, not whether they were present in some or all or none of the contemporary codices. Notwithstanding, we do have abundant evidence of two distinct things: - That the verses were in continual use and citation from around 100 AD onwards - That some MSS has the verses and that some did not. Eusebius in particular, who was an exact contemporary of א and B, testifies that many copies had the verses and that several copies did not. In other words the problem predates both א and B and Eusebius. However, Eusebius supplies us with the explanation of WHY the verses has come under attack in the first place. Some early rationalist felt that the account in Mark contradicted the time of the resurrection of Jesus in the alternate Gospel account. Hence they rashly removed the verses. But Eusebius Gordon to point out that a single comma at the right place completely harmonises the parallel accounts. (Remember the early uncials had no punctuation). So the passage is well arrested prior to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus And a notice established for why early rationalists would question and remove the passage given And the grammatical solution to this early synopsis problem was already addressed A second reason for early critics to take it upon themselves to remove the passage is that at first sight, Matthew 28:19, 20 is difficult to harmonize with Mark 16:15, 16. But when we see how Saint Peter applies both Gospels in his preaching in Acts 2:38, 39 the difficulty is easily resolved
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20 CHURCH FATHERS TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD ~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to Mark 16:18 ~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20 ~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13 ~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19 ~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20 ~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in Mark 16:15-18 ~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20 ~ 350-420 AD - The "Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16 ~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular: Verse 15 four times Verses 16 - 18 three times Verse 20 - once ~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture. ~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and 19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel" ~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions ~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20 "WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS: 'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' " [*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ] ~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20 ~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 ~ 500s AD - Others include: - Hesychius 6th century, and - The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses. Source: Dean John William Burgon, "The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark", published 1871
I have been going through the comments so far no one has responded to the Irenaeus argument. They just keep saying it doesn't fit or listen to my lecture.
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20 CHURCH FATHERS TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD ~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to Mark 16:18 ~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20 ~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13 ~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19 ~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20 ~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in Mark 16:15-18 ~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20 ~ 350-420 AD - The "Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16 ~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular: Verse 15 four times Verses 16 - 18 three times Verse 20 - once ~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture. ~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and 19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel" ~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions ~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20 "WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS: 'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' " [*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ] ~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20 ~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 ~ 500s AD - Others include: - Hesychius 6th century, and - The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses. Source: Dean John William Burgon, "The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark", published 1871
Majority text is another word for Byzantine text. This category of texts that fit this description are most of the 6000 NT Greek manuscripts we have, hence the name. However, they also start from the NINTH CENTURY AD (9TH)... or there bouts and move forward to present day. Manuscripts (means hand written i.e. copied) came to a halt after the printing press was invented in 1500s AD. So MT is 9th to 16th century manuscripts. All manuscripts are basically saying same thing... just rare variations.
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20 CHURCH FATHERS TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD ~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to Mark 16:18 ~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20 ~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13 ~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19 ~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20 ~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in Mark 16:15-18 ~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20 ~ 350-420 AD - The "Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16 ~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular: Verse 15 four times Verses 16 - 18 three times Verse 20 - once ~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture. ~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and 19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel" ~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions ~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20 "WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS: 'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' " [*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ] ~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20 ~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 ~ 500s AD - Others include: - Hesychius 6th century, and - The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses. Source: Dean John William Burgon, "The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark", published 1871
1 John 5:7 is not part of the Byzantine / Majority Text. Erasmus refused to include it in his edition of the Greek New Testament, which essentially reflected a tiny sample of the Byzantine Text (around 5 incomplete MSS). And Erasmus stated that he would include it if anyone could produce a Greek copy with the Johannine comma in it. But when a Roman catholic source "magically" produced a Greek copy with 1 John 5:7, Erasmus proceeded to publish his Greek New Testament with the comma inserted. Today just 2 MSS contain the comma, codices 61 and 629 (if memory serves). Both from the 1500s and contemporaneous with Erasmus. It's clear that were produced artificially in to meet Erasmus' criteria for his Greek New Testament. We cannot have it both ways and we need to be consistent. We reject the highly corrupt and eclectic UBS / Nestle Greek which is predominantly based upon a small handful of contradictory and incomplete MSS , including mostly B and א. But we approve the overwhelming majority of MSS which are reflected in the Majority Text and are simply attested also by the church fathers and ancient versions. So we must be consistent and not include the text 1 John 5:7 on the basis of the objective facts
@@mathete9968 The Johannine Comma is not present in Eastern Peshitta either, I doubt it's even in the UBS, but I don't have any translations from the UBS to verify that. Good work
@@OneFlockOneShepherdIts definitely not in the UBS / Nestle texts. (Not that this adds any credibility to that pair of woeful products of higher criticism). But neither Majority / Byzantine Nor UBS / Nestle retain the J comma . Its a text note that found its way into the Latin texts. I must say though, that the text apparatuses of the UBS text and the differing text Apparatus of the Nestle text are both very informative and helpful. So is the lexicon in the UBS text. And so is the UBS list of citations, allusions and verbal parallels which show references to the LXX. So even these woeful and untrustworthy texts still have very useful notes. The Hodges - Farstad Majority / Byzantine text also has a very useful text apparatus. It makes it easy to show that the majority and often the overwhelming majority of readings are supported by the Majority/ Byzantine Text, not the higher critics texts.
And who is the master of casting doubt? The current nature of NT Textual Criticism is about casting aspersions on the reliability of the text...which serves only to destroy people's faith. And why would anyone be led to do such a thing, if not because *a certain someone* was egging them on?
You are bearing false witness. The purpose of textual criticism is not to destroy faith. It is to determine what the originals said given that not all manuscripts say the same thing.
Really? Nothing he said made any sense!!! I'm a Biblical Historian, and im telling you that first of all, in 70 AD, when The Romans destroyed Judah, they also destroyed The original Scrolls! And The New Testament hadn't been invented yet! Until Emperor Constantine came along circa 350 years later, they supposedly threw Christians to lions. The only problem is The Messiah never started a Christian religion! 👉🏽Matt. 15-24 He said, I was only sent for the Lost Sheep of The House of Israel (the 10 Lost Tribes)! How easily people are allowing themselves to be led by wolves in sheep's clothing!
It was in the earlier texts that’s the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. That’s why Irenaeus could quote it 148 years before before the others were ever written.
The idea that Mark 16:9-20 are added passages and not part of the original manuscript is based on more than the use of it not appearing in the oldest manuscripts. There is also the evidence of the style of the Greek used that doesn’t match Mark’s style as well as many words that Mark doesn’t include in his Gospel. Several church fathers also stated that the passage in question was not included in the original. So there are good reasons to believe the passage was not original. I also believe certain teachings contained in it are antithetical to the first 8 verses and could lead Christians to error.
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20 CHURCH FATHERS TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD ~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to Mark 16:18 ~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20 ~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13 ~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19 ~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20 ~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in Mark 16:15-18 ~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20 ~ 350-420 AD - The "Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16 ~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular: Verse 15 four times Verses 16 - 18 three times Verse 20 - once ~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture. ~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and 19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel" ~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions ~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20 "WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS: 'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' " [*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ] ~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20 ~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 ~ 500s AD - Others include: - Hesychius 6th century, and - The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses. Source: Dean John William Burgon, "The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark", published 1871
Just because it's older doesn't mean it's more reliable. They were corrupting the word of God back then just as much as they are now. As a matter of fact, Satan was at it back in the Garden of Eden before scripture was even written. Paul himself was warning about it when he wrote Galatians...Galatians 1:6-9 (KJV) 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. "Older MSS" does not equal "more reliable MSS".
Sticking to facts is walking in truth. Speculating and walling it fact, is not walking in truth. Here in Jerusalem finishing up two year study of the biblical languages, speaking and reading them, and having studied what manuscript variations exist, I will say this: * yes Mark 16:9-16 is not in earlier manuscripts and codices (codexes). I have not found it in copies prior to 5th century AD. * but that does not mean that there could not exist some evidence of their earlier existence like earlier manuscripts. All we can say is we dont yet have it. * Saying for sure if it does or does not belong in the Bible is hard to say... if we are honest.
I just bought a 2nd hand Stella Guitar, on the inner company label is stamped "Mark 16" when I read that Scripture I was very happy for My New Guitar, then I discovered this whole argument thing I'd never heard of in almost 40 yrs of Reading The Bible. Very Glad to find this Video next. Thanks.
In all honesty I feel like this created more questions. It seems like it's a pattern of do I trust the source. So short of my own prayerful and academic search, this would just be data to compile until I reach the summit of the issue. Not at all am I here to deminish your time in research. It could be true that I need to "catch up." But I'm not convenced that this holds true. The issue of this passage is not about verses 19&20, but the signs that were given in this particular commission before those verses seems to be in contrast to most of the Lord's teachings. Brother believe me that I am not here as a naysayer but here with an honest question, why does this passage encourage handeling snakes, drinking deadly poison, speaking in different languages, and the ability to heal as the sign of a true believer?
Anyone who thinks that Mark would end his gospel with the apostles in fear and also without an ‘Amen’, as all the New Testament but Acts end, are mistaken. Furthermore, there is an enormous heptadic structure in those last versions, (the fingerprint of God’s divinity), proving it couldn’t possibly have been written by mere man.
You started off this by saying common sense. There are logical arguments on both sides of the fence so the way I see it is, if God meant it to be in the Bible then it was meant to be there. If it was not meant to be there then God would have made sure that it's not there secondly, who's to say that there isn't a version of the original Bible with Mark 16 9 to 20 and it just simply has not been found yet? So in the end if 98% of Bibles written include Mark 16: 9-20 and if that scripture seems to be comparable to most other scripture throughout the other books of the Bible, which it does, then it serves to reason that Mark 16: 9 to 20 is still God inspired. At least that's what my Common Sense tells me.
The KJV is great, and I use it as my standard. But be aware it was based upon a tiny sample of MSS taken from the population of Byzantine / Majority Text MSS. And the small sample (around 5 MSS) originally used were incomplete. Indeed Erasmus back translated from Latin the last chapters of Revelation thereby introduced Grammatical errors. He also added 1 John 5:7 which is absent from the Byzantine text. The text type behind the KJV, however, is vastly superior to the text type in the UBS NESTLE Text Albeit, many modern translations are excellent translations of this highly corrupted and untrustworthy UBS text. I use occasionally the ESV, NET and CSB as a way to check my own translation of the Greek. And these modern translations are certainly superior to KJV in passages like Matthew 28:19 But it's always hit and miss with these translations. We can never know when they are going to butcher a bike passage. For this reason I run these parallel to my KJV in my Bible app it's a first point of defence to be able to detect where they remove Bible verses
@@mathete9968 it's translated from the correct manuscripts. Remember that the church came about from a remnant and not majority. So, by enlightened reasoning today, if there were a lot of Christians to begin with, does it mean that they were the church? Absolutely. Size does not matter with God. Israel started out tiny, and so did the church. So, people can say that the kjv was translated from the majority text, and hyper critics can rebuke against it being perfect and say that it has errors and was translated from a small amount of manuscripts. With way, God did the work and His Word is perfect.
@@dominiclapinta8537Who says the KJV is translated from the "correct manuscripts" ? That's a completely subjective argument and one that is based upon circular reasoning. The advocates of modern translations make the same subjective claim that their translations are from "the correct manuscripts" also Do you see the problem with that faulty logical premise ? Many Chinese believers use the famous union translation. But that too was based upon the higher critics Greek text. Did they base their translation upon "the correct manuscripts?" And so the argument goes, around and around in a circle. The old time Lutherans used to say, that Luthers translation was the best translation, but that the KJV was a very good second. The puritans used to say that the Geneva Bible was superior to the King's translation (KJV), and they disdained to use the KJV. But tell me, have you ever read the description of Dr Daniel Featley on this topic? Featley was one of the renowned 47 KJV translators and a true Bible scholar. Moreover he was a Bible believing Christian Pastor. And he was persecuted and imprisoned for the faith. But Dr Featley, when debating the very first Baptists in London, 1642, declared openly that Translations can and do contain errors. And in that public debate he went in to show how this infant Baptist sect was wresting the words of the English version in a sense that was contrary to the Greek grammar. The reality is that translations are only as good as their faithfulness to the original Languages And the reliability of the text is only as good as it holds to the providentially preserved text found throughout the Christian church. The Textus Receptus was simply a term coined by Stephanus. And it reflects a tiny subset of the text preserved by God and utilised in the Greek church for 1500 years. But the daughter text of the edited "Textus Receptus" differs in places from it's parent text base of the providentially preserved Byzantine text. Are we the say that the entire church prior to man made edited edition of the Erasmus / Stephanus Received Text was wrong, and that this tiny, edited and somewhat crafted sample of preserved Byzantine text is right ? Are we not at the height of sinful pride to despise all those Christians who went before ? Are we saying that we alone from the 1550s have the true Bible and those who went before didn't? Can you see the inconsistency and fallacy of such presumptuous reasonings??? Dean John William Burgon devised 7 tests of truth in the 1870s. These were based in principles of godly common sense. Among these points he included the principles that we should: consider the testimony of: - The vast majority of Greek texts - The witness of the ancient versions - The testimony and citations of the early church fathers - The Scripture readings and evidence found in ancient lectionaries - The Catholicity (universality) of witness All these working in tandem reflect the readings which the Holy Spirit preserved as He worked among His people in the church . But appeal to the doctrine of election, viz "the tiny remnant" is a fallacious argument. It is true that God has time and time again reserved and saved the remnant, according to the election of Grace. But there is not a shred of Scripture to link that doctrine to the doctrine of the preservation of Holy Scripture. It is true that God can preserve his Word in many or few MSS. But we take account that God does not do these things in a corner. His providential preservation of Scripture has been accomplished throughout the church in a highly public manner. History is filled with abundant evidence and today we have upwards of 6000 MSS of the Greek New Testament, which overwhelmingly favour the Majority Byzantine Text.
“And they agree totally” but they don’t. The 5k+ manuscripts in the “majority received text” Do not all match. In fact, not a single one of them completely matches the Textus Receptus word for word! Read the original KJV introduction to the reader, written by the translators of the KJV, then put away these conspiracy theories. This video contains downright falsehoods about the Critical Text vs the Textus Receptus and it is your duty as a Christian to hold yourself to a higher standard.
You have not done any of the research. You’re just regurgitating the same talking points I used to use. If a writer quoted from that passage many years before the Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus were even written - that shows it was there in the Textus Receptus already. Stop trying to deceive people. It is your duty as a Christian to hold yourself to a higher standard. At least use common sense.
@@faithtowalkministries132 Hi I am new to this, and I want to understand this topic more. Could you please explain this comment to me in a simpler language?
Jesus taught theses signs shall follow,them that believe,this is after you are born and in the spirit of God in Christ Jesus our Lord and savior,this is proof,you receive the babtisim of the holy ghost in us ,and he will guide us in all truth by his word and spirit! KJV this is the power of God in Christ Jesus,I have found it to be true, by experience,this is proof enough for me! KJV
The originals do indeed not have 9 through 20. 9 through 20 was invented by the Catholic Church because they were not satisfied with the allegedly "abrupt ending" to Mark 16 in verse 8.
You didn’t watch the video. Irenaeus. Against Heresies quoted Mark 16:19 in 177 AD. The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus were written between 325 and 350 AD. Interesting that Irenaeus in Against Heresies quoted Matthew 16:19 in 177 AD. That’s 148 years before the other “oldest and most reliable” manuscripts were even written. You can’t quote a passage that didn’t exist. This alone proves the assumption a lie!
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20 CHURCH FATHERS TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD ~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to Mark 16:18 ~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20 ~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13 ~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19 ~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20 ~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in Mark 16:15-18 ~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20 ~ 350-420 AD - The "Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16 ~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular: Verse 15 four times Verses 16 - 18 three times Verse 20 - once ~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture. ~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and 19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel" ~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions ~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20 "WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS: 'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' " [*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ] ~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20 ~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 ~ 500s AD - Others include: - Hesychius 6th century, and - The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses. Source: Dean John William Burgon, "The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark", published 1871
@@chandlersleziak6416 You didn’t watch the video and your comment proves it. Irenaeus in Against Heresies 177 A.D. quoted it over 148 years before the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus were even written. You can’t quote from something that doesn’t exist. Many others quoted it too, way before those two came into existence.
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20 CHURCH FATHERS TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD ~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to Mark 16:18 ~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20 ~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13 ~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19 ~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20 ~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in Mark 16:15-18 ~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20 ~ 350-420 AD - The "Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16 ~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular: Verse 15 four times Verses 16 - 18 three times Verse 20 - once ~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture. ~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and 19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel" ~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions ~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20 "WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS: 'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' " [*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ] ~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20 ~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 ~ 500s AD - Others include: - Hesychius 6th century, and - The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses. Source: Dean John William Burgon, "The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark", published 1871
Based upon ?????? All that your speculation shows us that you are pushing your unbelief back to the end of the first century. For a thorough discussion as it why the verses came under attack I suggest you read the famous Church Historian Eusebius who lived exactly contemporary with Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. He testified - Many manuscripts had the verse - Several did not - The supposed grammatical reason why certain scribes took it upon themselves to attack these verses - The simple Grammatical solution that puts all grammatical questions to rest
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20 CHURCH FATHERS TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD ~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to Mark 16:18 ~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20 ~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13 ~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19 ~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20 ~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in Mark 16:15-18 ~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses Mark 16:9-20 ~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20 ~ 350-420 AD - The "Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16 ~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular: Verse 15 four times Verses 16 - 18 three times Verse 20 - once ~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture. ~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and 19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel" ~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions ~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20 "WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS: 'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' " [*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ] ~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20 ~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 ~ 500s AD - Others include: - Hesychius 6th century, and - The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses. Source: Dean John William Burgon, "The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark", published 1871
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #30 ДВА В ОДНОМ [Один человек]• Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nrXy15orKhY/mqdefault.jpg)
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20
CHURCH FATHERS
TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD
~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to
Mark 16:18
~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20
~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13
~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19
~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20
~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in
Mark 16:15-18
~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses
Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20
~ 350-420 AD - The
"Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16
~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular:
Verse 15 four times
Verses 16 - 18 three times
Verse 20 - once
~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture.
~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and
19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel"
~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions
~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20
"WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS:
'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE
FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH
SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' "
[*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ]
~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20
~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20
~ 500s AD - Others include:
- Hesychius 6th century, and
- The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses.
Source:
Dean John William Burgon,
"The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark",
published 1871
Thank you. Majority Text all the way! I go back and forth from JKV to NKJV.
I too love the JKV !
JK ;)
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20
CHURCH FATHERS
TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD
~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to
Mark 16:18
~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20
~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13
~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19
~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20
~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in
Mark 16:15-18
~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses
Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20
~ 350-420 AD - The
"Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16
~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular:
Verse 15 four times
Verses 16 - 18 three times
Verse 20 - once
~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture.
~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and
19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel"
~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions
~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20
"WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS:
'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE
FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH
SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' "
[*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ]
~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20
~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20
~ 500s AD - Others include:
- Hesychius 6th century, and
- The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses.
Source:
Dean John William Burgon,
"The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark",
published 1871
Evidence Against Mark 16:9-20
There are effectively just two Greek manuscripts that lack Mark 16:9-20. These are codices Sinaiticus (ℵ01) and Vaticanus (B03), two important manuscripts from the fourth century. It’s almost unimaginable that the copyists who made them were unaware of Mark 16:9-20, but at the end of the day, they left it out of their Bibles.
Once we look beyond the question of ℵ01 and B03 against the other 1,600-plus Greek manuscripts of Mark, the picture becomes more complicated. At least 23 Greek manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20 also have anomalies like extra endings or notes that express doubts concerning the authenticity of these verses. One important fourth-century Old Latin manuscript has a short addition after verse 8 and then ends without verses 9 to 20. A valuable Old Syriac manuscript from the fourth century also ends Mark at 16:8. A Sahidic Coptic manuscript (probably from the fifth century) ends Mark’s Gospel at 16:8 as well. In 1937, E. C. Colwell identified 99 Armenian manuscripts of Mark (of 220 surveyed) ending at 16:8, and a further 33 containing 16:9-20 but with notes expressing doubt about the verses’ authenticity.
MSS evidence is only one type of evidence. Moreover, the omission of verses is not evidence of the verses being non genuine. To say so is a logical fallacy.
The omission of verses is only evidence that the particular codice has omitted them.
It tells us nothing of the genuineness of the verses, not whether they were present in some or all or none of the contemporary codices.
Notwithstanding, we do have abundant evidence of two distinct things:
- That the verses were in continual use and citation from around 100 AD onwards
- That some MSS has the verses and that some did not. Eusebius in particular, who was an exact contemporary of א and B, testifies that many copies had the verses and that several copies did not.
In other words the problem predates both א and B and Eusebius.
However, Eusebius supplies us with the explanation of WHY the verses has come under attack in the first place. Some early rationalist felt that the account in Mark contradicted the time of the resurrection of Jesus in the alternate Gospel account. Hence they rashly removed the verses. But Eusebius Gordon to point out that a single comma at the right place completely harmonises the parallel accounts. (Remember the early uncials had no punctuation).
So the passage is well arrested prior to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
And a notice established for why early rationalists would question and remove the passage given
And the grammatical solution to this early synopsis problem was already addressed
A second reason for early critics to take it upon themselves to remove the passage is that at first sight,
Matthew 28:19, 20 is difficult to harmonize with Mark 16:15, 16.
But when we see how Saint Peter applies both Gospels in his preaching in Acts 2:38, 39 the difficulty is easily resolved
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20
CHURCH FATHERS
TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD
~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to
Mark 16:18
~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20
~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13
~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19
~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20
~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in
Mark 16:15-18
~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses
Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20
~ 350-420 AD - The
"Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16
~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular:
Verse 15 four times
Verses 16 - 18 three times
Verse 20 - once
~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture.
~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and
19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel"
~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions
~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20
"WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS:
'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE
FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH
SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' "
[*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ]
~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20
~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20
~ 500s AD - Others include:
- Hesychius 6th century, and
- The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses.
Source:
Dean John William Burgon,
"The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark",
published 1871
I have been going through the comments so far no one has responded to the Irenaeus argument. They just keep saying it doesn't fit or listen to my lecture.
Exactly! You can't quote something that didn't exist. He quoted it over 148 years earlier. That little fact doesn't fit their narrative.
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20
CHURCH FATHERS
TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD
~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to
Mark 16:18
~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20
~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13
~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19
~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20
~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in
Mark 16:15-18
~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses
Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20
~ 350-420 AD - The
"Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16
~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular:
Verse 15 four times
Verses 16 - 18 three times
Verse 20 - once
~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture.
~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and
19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel"
~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions
~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20
"WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS:
'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE
FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH
SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' "
[*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ]
~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20
~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20
~ 500s AD - Others include:
- Hesychius 6th century, and
- The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses.
Source:
Dean John William Burgon,
"The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark",
published 1871
Majority text is another word for Byzantine text. This category of texts that fit this description are most of the 6000 NT Greek manuscripts we have, hence the name.
However, they also start from the NINTH CENTURY AD (9TH)... or there bouts and move forward to present day. Manuscripts (means hand written i.e. copied) came to a halt after the printing press was invented in 1500s AD. So MT is 9th to 16th century manuscripts.
All manuscripts are basically saying same thing... just rare variations.
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20
CHURCH FATHERS
TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD
~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to
Mark 16:18
~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20
~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13
~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19
~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20
~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in
Mark 16:15-18
~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses
Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20
~ 350-420 AD - The
"Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16
~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular:
Verse 15 four times
Verses 16 - 18 three times
Verse 20 - once
~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture.
~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and
19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel"
~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions
~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20
"WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS:
'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE
FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH
SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' "
[*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ]
~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20
~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20
~ 500s AD - Others include:
- Hesychius 6th century, and
- The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses.
Source:
Dean John William Burgon,
"The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark",
published 1871
All the more reason to read my KJV. Thank you Pastor
Faith Servant Exactly - when you look at the evidence, it is plainly seen.
Thank you, yes it puts a lot of questions to rest.
You're very welcome
What are your thoughts on 1 John 5:7 being added?
I believe that was there as well. I need to do more research before I do a video, for I want to hit on all the arguments.
We know Erasmus added it due to being pressured. Please do research this one.@@faithtowalkministries132
1 John 5:7 is not part of the Byzantine / Majority Text.
Erasmus refused to include it in his edition of the Greek New Testament, which essentially reflected a tiny sample of the Byzantine Text (around 5 incomplete MSS).
And Erasmus stated that he would include it if anyone could produce a Greek copy with the Johannine comma in it.
But when a Roman catholic source "magically" produced a Greek copy with 1 John 5:7, Erasmus proceeded to publish his Greek New Testament with the comma inserted.
Today just 2 MSS contain the comma, codices 61 and 629 (if memory serves). Both from the 1500s and contemporaneous with Erasmus. It's clear that were produced artificially in to meet Erasmus' criteria for his Greek New Testament.
We cannot have it both ways and we need to be consistent.
We reject the highly corrupt and eclectic UBS / Nestle Greek which is predominantly based upon a small handful of contradictory and incomplete MSS , including mostly
B and א.
But we approve the overwhelming majority of MSS which are reflected in the Majority Text and are simply attested also by the church fathers and ancient versions.
So we must be consistent and not include the text 1 John 5:7 on the basis of the objective facts
@@mathete9968 The Johannine Comma is not present in Eastern Peshitta either, I doubt it's even in the UBS, but I don't have any translations from the UBS to verify that. Good work
@@OneFlockOneShepherdIts definitely not in the UBS / Nestle texts. (Not that this adds any credibility to that pair of woeful products of higher criticism).
But neither Majority / Byzantine
Nor UBS / Nestle retain the
J comma . Its a text note that found its way into the Latin texts.
I must say though, that the text apparatuses of the UBS text and the differing text Apparatus of the Nestle text are both very informative and helpful.
So is the lexicon in the UBS text.
And so is the UBS list of citations, allusions and verbal parallels which show references to the LXX.
So even these woeful and untrustworthy texts still have very useful notes.
The Hodges - Farstad
Majority / Byzantine text also has a very useful text apparatus. It makes it easy to show that the majority and often the overwhelming majority of readings are supported by the Majority/ Byzantine Text, not the higher critics texts.
Believers who love the word want the original without additions.
I recommend listening to Daniel Wallace’s course on Textual Criticism. It’s free on BiblicalTraining.org.
Well, I'm a Biblical Historian, and all this man gave you was a pile of fluff! It made no sense!
@@Ms.Mimi.Speaksdoes that mean you are refuting the authenticity of Irenaeus writing? Quoting the longer version of the text in 177?
@@Ms.Mimi.Speaks But are you a Bible believer?
@@bobbyadkins6983Let me Know when they All Believe the Same🤣
Ask Dr. Nehemia Gordon, a Karaite Jew, who along with other guests on Michael Rood's show, Shabbat Night Live (
And who is the master of casting doubt?
The current nature of NT Textual Criticism is about casting aspersions on the reliability of the text...which serves only to destroy people's faith. And why would anyone be led to do such a thing, if not because *a certain someone* was egging them on?
You are bearing false witness. The purpose of textual criticism is not to destroy faith. It is to determine what the originals said given that not all manuscripts say the same thing.
@@TexasHoosier3118 I said "the current nature". There is a difference between what it is and how it is frequently used.
Well done! That was a reliable explanation!
Thy Word Is Truth Thank you for watching and commenting! Great encouragement!
Really? Nothing he said made any sense!!!
I'm a Biblical Historian, and im telling you that first of all, in 70 AD, when The Romans destroyed Judah, they also destroyed The original Scrolls! And The New Testament hadn't been invented yet! Until Emperor Constantine came along circa 350 years later, they supposedly threw Christians to lions.
The only problem is The Messiah never started a Christian religion!
👉🏽Matt. 15-24 He said, I was only sent for the Lost Sheep of The House of Israel (the 10 Lost Tribes)!
How easily people are allowing themselves to be led by wolves in sheep's clothing!
I agree but why wouldn't be added in the earlier text.
It was in the earlier texts that’s the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. That’s why Irenaeus could quote it 148 years before before the others were ever written.
@@faithtowalkministries132actually there are not in the codex sinaiticus or the codex vaticanus. You can actually look them up and stops on 16:8!
The idea that Mark 16:9-20 are added passages and not part of the original manuscript is based on more than the use of it not appearing in the oldest manuscripts. There is also the evidence of the style of the Greek used that doesn’t match Mark’s style as well as many words that Mark doesn’t include in his Gospel. Several church fathers also stated that the passage in question was not included in the original. So there are good reasons to believe the passage was not original. I also believe certain teachings contained in it are antithetical to the first 8 verses and could lead Christians to error.
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20
CHURCH FATHERS
TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD
~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to
Mark 16:18
~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20
~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13
~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19
~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20
~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in
Mark 16:15-18
~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses
Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20
~ 350-420 AD - The
"Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16
~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular:
Verse 15 four times
Verses 16 - 18 three times
Verse 20 - once
~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture.
~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and
19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel"
~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions
~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20
"WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS:
'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE
FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH
SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' "
[*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ]
~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20
~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20
~ 500s AD - Others include:
- Hesychius 6th century, and
- The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses.
Source:
Dean John William Burgon,
"The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark",
published 1871
Just because it's older doesn't mean it's more reliable. They were corrupting the word of God back then just as much as they are now. As a matter of fact, Satan was at it back in the Garden of Eden before scripture was even written. Paul himself was warning about it when he wrote Galatians...Galatians 1:6-9 (KJV)
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
"Older MSS" does not equal "more reliable MSS".
Thy Word Is Truth Exactly!
Well said
Sticking to facts is walking in truth. Speculating and walling it fact, is not walking in truth.
Here in Jerusalem finishing up two year study of the biblical languages, speaking and reading them, and having studied what manuscript variations exist, I will say this:
* yes Mark 16:9-16 is not in earlier manuscripts and codices (codexes). I have not found it in copies prior to 5th century AD.
* but that does not mean that there could not exist some evidence of their earlier existence like earlier manuscripts. All we can say is we dont yet have it.
* Saying for sure if it does or does not belong in the Bible is hard to say... if we are honest.
I just bought a 2nd hand Stella Guitar, on the inner company label is stamped "Mark 16" when I read that Scripture I was very happy for My New Guitar, then I discovered this whole argument thing I'd never heard of in almost 40 yrs of Reading The Bible.
Very Glad to find this Video next.
Thanks.
Interesting story about the guitar! Thanks for sharing! Also thanks for the encouragement!
Nice work explaining it,
Thank you for watching and the encouragement!
Thankfully we have people who know it does. I'll just stick with the KJV.
Absolutely!
God conformed this is true, Although man hands wrote the Bible it is Gods words therefore man cannot tell a true child of God what shouldn’t be there
Amen! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment!
Great video thanks for sharing👌
In all honesty I feel like this created more questions. It seems like it's a pattern of do I trust the source. So short of my own prayerful and academic search, this would just be data to compile until I reach the summit of the issue. Not at all am I here to deminish your time in research. It could be true that I need to "catch up." But I'm not convenced that this holds true. The issue of this passage is not about verses 19&20, but the signs that were given in this particular commission before those verses seems to be in contrast to most of the Lord's teachings. Brother believe me that I am not here as a naysayer but here with an honest question, why does this passage encourage handeling snakes, drinking deadly poison, speaking in different languages, and the ability to heal as the sign of a true believer?
Amen
Anyone who thinks that Mark would end his gospel with the apostles in fear and also without an ‘Amen’, as all the New Testament but Acts end, are mistaken. Furthermore, there is an enormous heptadic structure in those last versions, (the fingerprint of God’s divinity), proving it couldn’t possibly have been written by mere man.
Thanks for sharing!
Well done
Thank you and thanks for watching!
Brilliant. Very informative. Well done explaining this!!! Thank you for sharing with us.
You started off this by saying common sense. There are logical arguments on both sides of the fence so the way I see it is, if God meant it to be in the Bible then it was meant to be there. If it was not meant to be there then God would have made sure that it's not there secondly, who's to say that there isn't a version of the original Bible with Mark 16 9 to 20 and it just simply has not been found yet? So in the end if 98% of Bibles written include Mark 16: 9-20 and if that scripture seems to be comparable to most other scripture throughout the other books of the Bible, which it does, then it serves to reason that Mark 16: 9 to 20 is still God inspired. At least that's what my Common Sense tells me.
Great explanation and also 2 KJV Scofield’s are better than one!🤠👍
Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment!
I prefer the KJV becauae it may "not use all manuacripts", but it is translated from the correct ones.
Absolutely!
The KJV is great, and I use it as my standard. But be aware it was based upon a tiny sample of MSS taken from the population of Byzantine / Majority Text MSS. And the small sample (around 5 MSS) originally used were incomplete. Indeed Erasmus back translated from Latin the last chapters of Revelation thereby introduced Grammatical errors. He also added 1 John 5:7 which is absent from the Byzantine text.
The text type behind the KJV, however, is vastly superior to the text type in the UBS NESTLE Text
Albeit, many modern translations are excellent translations of this highly corrupted and untrustworthy UBS text.
I use occasionally the ESV, NET and CSB as a way to check my own translation of the Greek.
And these modern translations are certainly superior to KJV in passages like Matthew 28:19
But it's always hit and miss with these translations. We can never know when they are going to butcher a bike passage.
For this reason I run these parallel to my KJV in my Bible app it's a first point of defence to be able to detect where they remove Bible verses
@@mathete9968 it's translated from the correct manuscripts. Remember that the church came about from a remnant and not majority. So, by enlightened reasoning today, if there were a lot of Christians to begin with, does it mean that they were the church? Absolutely. Size does not matter with God. Israel started out tiny, and so did the church. So, people can say that the kjv was translated from the majority text, and hyper critics can rebuke against it being perfect and say that it has errors and was translated from a small amount of manuscripts. With way, God did the work and His Word is perfect.
@@dominiclapinta8537Who says the KJV is translated from the "correct manuscripts" ?
That's a completely subjective argument and one that is based upon circular reasoning.
The advocates of modern translations make the same subjective claim that their translations are from "the correct manuscripts" also
Do you see the problem with that faulty logical premise ?
Many Chinese believers use the famous union translation. But that too was based upon the higher critics Greek text. Did they base their translation upon "the correct manuscripts?" And so the argument goes, around and around in a circle.
The old time Lutherans used to say, that Luthers translation was the best translation, but that the KJV was a very good second.
The puritans used to say that the Geneva Bible was superior to the King's translation (KJV), and they disdained to use the KJV.
But tell me, have you ever read the description of Dr Daniel Featley on this topic?
Featley was one of the renowned 47 KJV translators and a true Bible scholar. Moreover he was a Bible believing Christian Pastor. And he was persecuted and imprisoned for the faith.
But Dr Featley, when debating the very first Baptists in London, 1642, declared openly that Translations can and do contain errors. And in that public debate he went in to show how this infant Baptist sect was wresting the words of the English version in a sense that was contrary to the Greek grammar.
The reality is that translations are only as good as their faithfulness to the original Languages
And the reliability of the text is only as good as it holds to the providentially preserved text found throughout the Christian church.
The Textus Receptus was simply a term coined by Stephanus. And it reflects a tiny subset of the text preserved by God and utilised in the Greek church for 1500 years.
But the daughter text of the edited "Textus Receptus" differs in places from it's parent text base of the providentially preserved Byzantine text.
Are we the say that the entire church prior to man made edited edition of the Erasmus / Stephanus Received Text was wrong, and that this tiny, edited and somewhat crafted sample of preserved Byzantine text is right ?
Are we not at the height of sinful pride to despise all those Christians who went before ?
Are we saying that we alone from the 1550s have the true Bible and those who went before didn't?
Can you see the inconsistency and fallacy of such presumptuous reasonings???
Dean John William Burgon devised 7 tests of truth in the 1870s. These were based in principles of godly common sense.
Among these points he included the principles that we should: consider the testimony of:
- The vast majority of Greek texts
- The witness of the ancient versions
- The testimony and citations of the early church fathers
- The Scripture readings and evidence found in ancient lectionaries
- The Catholicity (universality) of witness
All these working in tandem reflect the readings which the Holy Spirit preserved as He worked among His people in the church .
But appeal to the doctrine of election, viz "the tiny remnant" is a fallacious argument.
It is true that God has time and time again reserved and saved the remnant, according to the election of Grace.
But there is not a shred of Scripture to link that doctrine to the doctrine of the preservation of Holy Scripture.
It is true that God can preserve his Word in many or few MSS. But we take account that God does not do these things in a corner. His providential preservation of Scripture has been accomplished throughout the church in a highly public manner. History is filled with abundant evidence and today we have upwards of 6000 MSS of the Greek New Testament, which overwhelmingly favour the Majority Byzantine Text.
this is alll LIES.....Mark 16:9-20 is the signature of God
Well then, I hope you are doing these things consistently. The world would be glorious by know
This is why I preach and trust the NKJV and KJV. The majority text has all of Gods words.
Indeed! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment!
Generally people with no faith don’t want mark 16:9-20 in the Bible that’s all.
Very true! Thanks for watching!
Right hand refers to the Seat of Authority.
Satan hates, and would pervert The Word of Truth.
Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment!
“And they agree totally” but they don’t. The 5k+ manuscripts in the “majority received text” Do not all match. In fact, not a single one of them completely matches the Textus Receptus word for word! Read the original KJV introduction to the reader, written by the translators of the KJV, then put away these conspiracy theories. This video contains downright falsehoods about the Critical Text vs the Textus Receptus and it is your duty as a Christian to hold yourself to a higher standard.
You have not done any of the research. You’re just regurgitating the same talking points I used to use. If a writer quoted from that passage many years before the Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus were even written - that shows it was there in the Textus Receptus already. Stop trying to deceive people. It is your duty as a Christian to hold yourself to a higher standard. At least use common sense.
@@faithtowalkministries132 Hi I am new to this, and I want to understand this topic more. Could you please explain this comment to me in a simpler language?
Jesus taught theses signs shall follow,them that believe,this is after you are born and in the spirit of God in Christ Jesus our Lord and savior,this is proof,you receive the babtisim of the holy ghost in us ,and he will guide us in all truth by his word and spirit! KJV this is the power of God in Christ Jesus,I have found it to be true, by experience,this is proof enough for me! KJV
Thank you for taking the time to watch and comment! I appreciate it highly!
Mark 16:9-20 uses the other Gospels it is fine
Aargh!!! Horrible textual criticism!
The originals do indeed not have 9 through 20. 9 through 20 was invented by the Catholic Church because they were not satisfied with the allegedly "abrupt ending" to Mark 16 in verse 8.
You didn’t watch the video. Irenaeus.
Against Heresies quoted Mark 16:19 in 177 AD. The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus were written between 325 and 350 AD. Interesting that Irenaeus in Against Heresies quoted Matthew 16:19 in 177 AD. That’s 148 years before the other “oldest and most reliable” manuscripts were even written. You can’t quote a passage that didn’t exist. This alone proves the assumption a lie!
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20
CHURCH FATHERS
TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD
~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to
Mark 16:18
~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20
~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13
~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19
~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20
~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in
Mark 16:15-18
~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses
Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20
~ 350-420 AD - The
"Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16
~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular:
Verse 15 four times
Verses 16 - 18 three times
Verse 20 - once
~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture.
~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and
19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel"
~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions
~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20
"WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS:
'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE
FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH
SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' "
[*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ]
~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20
~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20
~ 500s AD - Others include:
- Hesychius 6th century, and
- The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses.
Source:
Dean John William Burgon,
"The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark",
published 1871
@@faithtowalkministries132 Mark 16:9-20 are nowhere to be found in Vaticanus or Sinaticus. Again, those verses are fake.
@@mathete9968 Those people quoted those verses because they fell for the lies of the Catholic Church. Mark 16:9-20 are fake verses.
@@chandlersleziak6416 You didn’t watch the video and your comment proves it. Irenaeus in
Against Heresies 177 A.D. quoted it over 148 years before the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus were even written. You can’t quote from something that doesn’t exist. Many others quoted it too, way before those two came into existence.
It does belong! otherwise the Anti-Nicen fathers would not have quoted from it!!
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20
CHURCH FATHERS
TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD
~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to
Mark 16:18
~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20
~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13
~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19
~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20
~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in
Mark 16:15-18
~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses
Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20
~ 350-420 AD - The
"Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16
~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular:
Verse 15 four times
Verses 16 - 18 three times
Verse 20 - once
~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture.
~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and
19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel"
~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions
~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20
"WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS:
'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE
FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH
SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' "
[*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ]
~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20
~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20
~ 500s AD - Others include:
- Hesychius 6th century, and
- The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses.
Source:
Dean John William Burgon,
"The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark",
published 1871
I think Mark 16:9-20 was written around 100 AD
Based upon ??????
All that your speculation shows us that you are pushing your unbelief back to the end of the first century.
For a thorough discussion as it why the verses came under attack I suggest you read the famous Church Historian Eusebius who lived exactly contemporary with Vaticanus and Alexandrinus.
He testified
- Many manuscripts had the verse
- Several did not
- The supposed grammatical reason why certain scribes took it upon themselves to attack these verses
- The simple Grammatical solution that puts all grammatical questions to rest
CITATIONS of Mark 16:9-20
CHURCH FATHERS
TIMELINE: 100 AD - 500 AD
~ 100 AD - Papius alludes to
Mark 16:18
~ 151 AD - Justin Martyr quotes Mark 16:20
~ 180 AD - Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:13
~ 210 AD - Hippolytus quotes Mark 16:17, 18 and also makes reference to v.19
~ 256 AD - Cyprian quotes two verses from Mark 16:9-20
~ 250s AD - The "ACTA PILATI" quotes the four verses in
Mark 16:15-18
~ 310 AD Jacobus Nisibenius quotes Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 AD - Eusebius discusses the authenticity of the verses
Mark 16:9-20
~ 325 - 350 AD - Marinus refers to Mark 16:9-20
~ 350-420 AD - The
"Apostolical Constitutions" cite Mark 16:16
~ 390 AD - Saint Ambrose quotes Mark 16:9-20, in particular:
Verse 15 four times
Verses 16 - 18 three times
Verse 20 - once
~ 390 AD - Jerome includes Mark 16:9-20 in his Vulgate translation as Scripture.
~ 400 AD - Chrysostom testifies that Mark records the Ascension of Jesus and quotes Mark 16:9; and
19, 20 calling the latter verses of Mark ... "The END of the Gospel"
~ 395 - 430 AD - Saint Augustine quotes Mark 16:9-20 again and again in his theological discussions
~ 410 AD - Victor of Antioch, commenting upon Mark 16:9-20
"WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT TO EXIST, HAVE OUT OF ACCURATE COPIES ... ALSO THE ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD'S ASCENSION IN ACCORD WITH THE PALESTINIAN EXEMPLAR* OF MARK, WHICH EXHIBITS THE GOSPEL TRUTH, THAT IS TO SAY, FROM THE WORDS:
'NOW WHEN [JESUS] WAS RISEN EARLY THE
FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK' ... DOWN TO 'WITH
SIGNS FOLLOWING. AMEN' "
[*EXEMPLAR: A truly ancient codex, still extant in 410 AD which was used for comparison of copies being produced in 410 AD. - Think about it! ]
~ 420 AD - Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria refer to Mark 16:20
~ 425 AD Cyril of Antioch testifies to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20
~ 500s AD - Others include:
- Hesychius 6th century, and
- The Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (Athanasius or later ?) all bear testimony to these verses.
Source:
Dean John William Burgon,
"The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark",
published 1871