From:  (Andrew Bromage)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mark 16 disputed verses
Date: 29 Mar 1999 13:58:54 GMT

G'day all.

 (Able) writes:

>Would anybody like to explain to me why the last 12 verses of Mark 16
>are in dispute?

Basically, the argument goes as follows.


- The passage does not appear in some of the oldest manuscripts

  such as Aleph, B and 304.

- It is not found in many old translations, such as Sinaitic Old

  Syraic, the Sahadic Coptic, some of the old Armenian and

  Georgian translations.

- In quite a few old manuscripts the passage appears, but it

  is enclosed in critical marks (e.g. asterisks) indicating that

  the scribe knew that the passage was questionable.

- There are other endings to Mark too, such as in "k".  In many

  (and I do mean many) ancient manuscripts the shorter ending

  and the longer ending are combined.

- Some manuscripts only contain verses 9 to 11.

- One or two also include more text, such as Codex W, which

  includes a whole other paragraph between verses 14 and 15..

Such variation is extremely uncommon, and indicates doubt in the minds
of early scribes.  Many textual critics, such as Warfield, believe that
the existence of the shorter ending is evidence against the longer one.
There is a lot to be said for arguments of these forms, since pious
scribes are more likely to add than to subtract in order not to leave
anything out.  However, even if you don't buy this argument, the wide
variety of endings of Mark in the most ancient manuscripts is sufficient
to say that there is no clear cut "majority rules" evidence _for_ the
longer ending alone.

The argument then goes on to discuss the internal evidence (how "un-
Mark-like" the verses are), and finishes with a discussion of the content
and how out-of-character for Jesus it is.  I don't want to get caught in
a discussion of this because it's out of my depth as far as knowledge of
internal criticism goes.

Basically, everyone would agree that:


- Nobody doubts that the longer ending of Mark is very ancient.

- Nobody, as far as I know, argues for its exclusion from the

  modern Bible.

- It is one of many textual possibilities for the ending of Mark,

  and many ancient scribes were themselves unsure of its veracity.

- The modern practice of placing it in critical marks with an

  explanation is by no means novel.

Does that answer your question?

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage