Does Mark 16:9-20 Belong?

February 7, 2013 by 1 Comment

There are so many attacks against the New Testament offered by unbelievers, including atheists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, etc. that believe the New Testament has been corrupted. They say that men have corrupted the text and have mistranslated the Bible since the Apostles wrote it. One such example that many may bring up is Mark 16:9-20. Some say it does not belong in the Bible. Some say it does. Below are some of my opinions based on what I have read and learned about this issue.

Many people claim that this passage in Mark is not authentic. There seems to be three main reasons why they believe this to be the case:

  1. Mark 16:9-20 is not included in two of the oldest manuscripts that we currently have today, the Sinaiticus and Vati­can­us manuscripts.
  2. The vocabulary and style of the verses are deemed non-Markan, and
  3. The connection between verse 8 and verses 9-20 seems awkward and gives the surface appearance of having been added by someone other than Mark.

Not Included in Two Oldest Manuscripts

    There are a few problems that I have with this position:
  • It is in the Alexandrian manuscript, which is about the same age as the other two. It is only 40 years older. What makes the other two more reliable than this one? It is an arbitrary decision to say that the oldest manuscripts are the more reliable manuscripts. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus should carry no more weight over Alexandrinus.
  • The vast majority of manuscripts do include Mark 16:9-20
  • This passage is referred to by Irenaeus (in Against Heresies), an early church father, in the second century. It is also mentioned by a disciple of Justin Martyr around 170AD, and by Tertullian in the early 3rd century.
  • One of the manuscripts that leaves Mark 16:9-20 out (Vati­can­us) also leaves out the book of Revelation, but no one questions the book of Revelation as being canonical.
  • Nothing within it contradicts other scripture, and most of what it teaches is taught elsewhere in scripture. (one exception is the drinking of deadly poison)

Connection Between Verses 8 & 9 is “Odd”

    I believe this point is easily dismissed as arbitrary and subjective opinion. Some may agree that the connection between verses eight and nine is awkward, some may disagree. Both opinions are equally valid and do not give evidence for its being excluded or included.

    Different Vocabulary

    This point also seems invalid to me. I am sure you could find many books in a bookstore that may contain different words in the last chapter compared to the other chapters that are written by the same person. This really proves nothing.Also, if you provided the same test on verses one through eight with the rest compared to the rest of Mark, you find the same problem. Should we reject verses one through eight also? This is not solid evidence to reject verses that are included in the vast majority of manuscripts.

      The strongest three evidences against Mark being included can easily be dismissed. By far the strongest evidence, (different vocabulary) could be used to dismiss sections of the book which are clearly written by Mark. Based on this fact, along with the vast amount of manuscript evidence, the question I ask is: Is there a bias that many scholars hold that leads them to reject Mark 16:9-20? Do they have a bias because they believe the oldest manuscripts are the best? Do they have a bias against something taught in the passage?
    Filed Under: Bible, Common Objections, Textual Criticism Tagged With: ,

    The Bible: The Word of God

    January 17, 2013 by Leave a Comment

    Is the Bible God’s Word? You will get a couple different answers depending on who you ask.

    • Some may say it is a book written by men, not God, even though those who wrote it say otherwise
    • Some say it is not from God because of all the “errors and contradictions” that are in it, but are not willing to say exactly where those “errors or contradictions” are. Even if they do point some out, they are unwilling to listen to why those verses are not contradictions.

    I believe that the main reason people believe that the Bible is not from God is because they don’t want to believe it or obey it! I believe that if anyone opened up the bible with a heart searching for truth would come to the conclusion that it is from God

     

    1 Peter 3:15 says we must be ready to stand up for what we believe. We must remember that everything we believe; every reason we live the way we do is because of what we have revealed to us from the scriptures. We believe the bible to be the word of God, and we need to be able to give a defense of our belief with evidence.

     

    THE BIBLE CLAIMS INSPIRATION

    2 Timothy 3:16-17 All of it is inspired (God Breathed)

    2 Peter 1:21 gave God’s word. “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” This verse is talking about where scripture comes from. It doesn’t come from the mind of man, but the writers gave what the Spirit gave them.

    2 Peter 3:14-16 Paul’s writings and scripture are one in the same!

    The bible claims to be the word of God. But that doesn’t prove that it is inspired. I can claim to be a good looking guy, but that doesn’t make it so.

     

    UNITY OF THE BIBLE

    The Bible, a book composed of a library of 66 books, written by about 40 men of different backgrounds, cultures, and occupations. It was written in 3 languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) over a period of 1500 years on 3 continents.

    I think I have used this illustration before. Say we interviewed 40 people who all speak the same language, that work at the same job, in the same city, at the same time, and we lined all 40 up in a line. If I whispered something in the first person’s ear and then he whispered it in the next person’s ear, then so on down the line, would what the 40th guy whispers in my ear be anything like what I whispered in the first guy’s ear. More than likely not.

    Say we take those same 40 men, and ask them to tell us what they think about one controversial biblical issue, such as homosexuality, fornication, or the biblical role of women. Would all 40 give us the same answer? I would be shocked if they did!

     

    VALUES TAUGHT

    The moral standards of the Bible are the highest known to man. They are impossible for man to achieve without divine help. Man would never set such unreachable standards for himself. This shows me that it was not just men that wrote the Bible.

    Matthew 5:38-42 These are different from what any man would come up with. The world teaches way different values than this. The bible gives the greatest standard of living.

    Matthew 5:43-48 These don’t come from the wisdom of men. Men don’t say these things.

    James 1:2-4 Be joyful when you suffer? That’s just backwards than what the world teaches! (Paul and Silas in prison (Acts16:24-25))

     

    SCIENTIFIC FOREKNOWLEDGE

    The bible has foreknowledge about the earth that science has just figured out over the last 700 years.

    Isaiah 40:22 (2500-3000 yrs ago) The circle of the earth? This was written by Isaiah n about 700BC, way before it was discovered that the earth is round! We can see this today with satellite pictures of the earth.

    Job 26:7 (Time of Abraham-written later?) Earth is hung on nothing. This is obvious to us. But this wasn’t always believed by men! Atlas holding up, or held up by an elephant and a turtle. We can’t prove this by just looking.

    Job 38:16 There are springs that arise from the ocean floor. The earliest secular writings that spoke about this was at the time of Christ, over a thousand years after it was written in Job.

    Hydrological cycle (Job 36:27-28, Eccl 1:6-7)

    THIS DOESN’T PROVE THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD. BUT IF IT WAS WRONG IT WOULD DISPROVE IT IS THE WORD OF GOD. THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCEINCE BOOK, BUT WHEN IT SPEAKS OF SCIENTIFIC THINGS, IT IS CORRECT.

     

    MEDICALLY ACCURATE

    Life is in our blood (Leviticus 17) During George Washington’s day, the practice of blood-letting to treat various kinds of illnesses was common. In fact, George Washington died from this very treatment. In 1830 AD, Dr. Marshall Hall came out in strong opposition to this practice. However, had any of the doctors who practiced this treatment read these Bible verses, they would have known that it could have fatal consequences.

    Circumcisions should be performed on the eighth day after birth (Genesis 17:12) The reason for this has been found out. On day 8 of a child’s life, vitamin K, which helps in the healing process, is in its highest concentrations!

     

    ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

    The first proof we have testifying to the reliability of the Bible is the archaeological evidence. Nelson Glueck, a respected Jewish archaeologist claims: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference.” This is not true of other religions. The Mormon claim for inspiration of the Book of Mormon has been categorically condemned by the Smithsonian Institute because of the fallacies shown by archaeology; this is not so with the Bible. A.N. Sherwin-White, a respected classical historian at Oxford says, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…”

    Hundreds of statements in the Bible, which in times past have been held untrue by enemies of the Bible, have recently been proven true by archaeologists. Here are 3 examples:

    · The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered

    · It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon’s palace was discovered in Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls.

    · Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16)

    The more that archaeologists find from the past, the more the Bible is proven accurate historically.

     

    PROPHECY

    Isaiah 44:24-28

    200 years before the birth of Cyrus!!!

    Fulfillment – Ezra 1:1-4

    We can’t predict what’s going to happen in our country ten years from now, or even 5 years from now. This is just one of hundreds of prophecies that are fulfilled! We a few months ago looked at about 50 Old Testament prophecies that Jesus fulfilled!

     

    The greatest proof that the bible is from God:

    The RESURRECTION

    I made this point when we studied the evidence for the resurrection. The resurrection of Christ is the miracle that proves that Jesus was who He claimed to be. Everything He said was true; including the fact that He said his Apostles (Matthew, John, Peter, Paul) and Prophets (Luke, Mark, James, Jude) would speak on His behalf and be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    Jesus says in John 14-16 that the Spirit would come to His Apostles, dwell with them, bear witness of Christ, and lead them into ALL truth.

    Jn 16:13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

     

    Conclusion

    When we examine all of these facts, I believe it is enough evidence to prove that the bible is from God. And with that being the case, if our lives and beliefs are contrary to what it teaches, we are wrong! We need to repent!

    We need to desire God’s word, study it, and apply it. The Lord tells us what we need to do to be right with Him. What a great privilege we are given.

    Filed Under: Apologetics, Bible Tagged With: , , ,

    Evidences Sermons

    July 13, 2012 by Leave a Comment

    This series of lessons is probably the most helpful series of sermons on evidences that I have ever heard.

    Filed Under: Bible, Evidences Tagged With: , , , , ,

    Is Our Bible Trustworthy?

    July 11, 2012 by Leave a Comment

    The fact that we do not have the original autographs of the New Testament manuscripts has led many to deny that the New Testament that we have is reliable. The phrase, “The Bible’s ntbeen translated and recopied so many times…” has been one of the more frequent objections that are given to accepting the Bible. Many religious groups today also make the claim that the Bible has been corrupted over time, which has led to “new revelations,” such as ones received by Muhammad and Joseph Smith.

    If the Bible has been corrupted, then all of these people and religious groups make a great point. We would not know what is and is not reliable. But when these people make this point, they are rewriting history and neglecting all of the evidence that the area of textual criticism gives us.

    1. Do we possess copies that are reasonably close to the originals?

    Without question, the Bible fares better in this area than most ancient documents. We have copies that are much closer to the originals than any other ancient work by comparison! There is a fragment of the gospel of John that dates to within 50 years of when the gospel was originally written. We have thousands of fragments or full manuscripts that date from 50-1500 years from when the originals were written. Full manuscripts 300 years away from originals. (not a long time to experts)

    If these were not “religious” documents, this would lead the document to be credible! No one would reasonably doubt its credibility if it were another historical document. Critics cannot refute this! The Bible is the best attested ancient work ever. Period.

    -Livy’s history of Rome – number of manuscripts available – 20

        • Oldest copy made 500 years later

    -Julius Caesars Gallic Wars – number of manuscripts available -10

    • Oldest copy made 900 years later

    -Annals of Tacitus – number of manuscripts available -2

    • Oldest copy made 800 years after original

    -The New Testament – number of manuscripts available -5600

    • full manuscript of 300 yrs. within originals, fragments within 50 yrs.(these numbers only include Greek manuscripts and fragments!)

    No one doubts the first 3 as being reliable! The closest work of antiquity to matching the New Testament is Homer’s Iliad. There are about 2500 manuscripts or fragments, and the earliest dating is about 500 years after the original.

    2. Did the authors intend to convey reliable history to the readers?

    Luke 1:1-4
    Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

    Luke leaves no doubt that he desired to leave a precise, detailed account of the gospel (and Acts). The truth is that if the gospels did not contain miracles, no one would doubt whether they were credible or not.

    3. Were the authors in a position to know what they were talking about?

    The best situation is that the author is either an eyewitness or very close to an eyewitness. The closer to the situation spoken about, the more reliable it will be. Luke had direct contact with eyewitnesses and thoroughly investigated everything. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark is believed to receive his information from Peter, an eyewitness.

    Paul wrote 25-30 years after Jesus’ resurrection 1 Corinthians 15, which mentions Jesus’ resurrection. Paul was in a position to know what he was talking about. He was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ!

    Once again, if these were not religious, their credibility would not be doubted.

    4. Did the authors’ bias distort their historical reporting?

    It is true that these men were followers of Jesus that wanted to convert people to Christianity. But does this mean that they fabricated stories such as the miracles to try to convert people? Did they lie? What would be their motivation for doing this?

    Asking this same question about other historical documents would render all of history as unreliable because most people wrote history of something they were personally invested in. There is no such thing as a totally unbiased position. So based on this argument, all history is false!

    Also, why would the writers fabricate such lies, and then be willing to get into trouble, suffer, or even die for what they know is a lie?

    5. Is there “self-damaging” material in the documents?

    There is a lot of self-damaging material in the bible, where the authors did not hide facts that made themselves or other followers of God look bad. This shows that the authors’ purpose was not to “sugar-coat” everything and to gloss over problems.

    A Few Examples:

    • Jesus’ own family did not believe in Him (Mark 3:21, John 7:5)
    • People in Jesus’ hometown rejected Him (Mark 6:2-5)
    • His disciples were unable at a point to exorcise demons (Mark 9:18)
    • The disciples many times argued amongst each other and did not believe (Mark 9:34)
    • Jesus was betrayed by a close disciple and denied by another (Mark 14)
    • Women were the first witnesses to testify about seeing Jesus alive.

    6. Are the documents consistent with other documents that talk about the same events?

    Each gospel on its own merits is consistent internally.Each one gives us a separate account of the ministry of Jesus.

    The question arises in how the Gospels relate to each other. There are similarities and differences between them. Some have gone as far as stating that any difference between the gospels means there is a contradiction.

    For example, one gospel says there were two men/or angels at the tomb after Jesus’ resurrection and another gospel says there was only one. Is this a contradiction? No, it is not. This would be equivalent of someone witnessing a major 10 vehicle accident on the interstate. If that person comes home and tells his wife about two vehicles that got into an accident, and how these vehicles did not even look like cars any longer, did he lie to his wife about what he was an eyewitness of? No. If his wife saw the incident reported on the news along with video footage of the whole accident where she sees there were 10 vehicles involved, will she accuse her husband of lying to her by not mentioning all 10 vehicles? of course not. The man’s eyewitness report and the video footage were not contradictory because there were differences. The same is the case with the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life. There are differences, and the reason is the same as the above illustration. They recorded the events from a different point of view and wanted to stress different facts about the events. Just because there are differences, does not mean that the witnesses contradict each other.

    Also, It is important to notice the difference between a difficulty and a true contradiction. A contradiction means that there are mutually exclusive statements that cannot be reconciled because there are no plausible explanations. Such charges against the Bible have not been sustained. All supposed contradictions are dismissed upon looking at the scriptures within context, understanding the culture of the time period, and understanding the genre of the writing.

    7. Are the recorded events “believable?”

    For this question, presuppositions come into play. If someone has a certain worldview that will not consider the possibility of miracles being able to happen (for example, naturalism or materialism), they view the New Testament as “unbelievable.” The fact that there is credible eyewitness testimony gives us something that is believable.

    These questions help to show that the Bible is believable:

    • If there is a God, would he want to communicate with His creation?
    • If there is a God, would He want to be involved?
    • If there is a God, miracles are possible, and believable!

    If there is a God, it would not be surprising if He did supernatural things throughout history, whether He is still doing supernatural things or not. If there were not supernatural things spoken of in the Bible then this would be an evidence that the Bible is not from God.

    8. Does archaeology support the Bible?

    Nelson Glueck, a respected Jewish archaeologist claims: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference.” This is not true of other religions. The Mormon claim for inspiration of the Book of Mormon has been categorically condemned by the Smithsonian Institute because of the fallacies shown by archaeology; this is not so with the Bible. A.N. Sherwin-White, a respected classical historian at Oxford says, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…”

    Hundreds of statements in the Bible, which in times past have been held untrue by enemies of the Bible, have recently been proven true by archaeologists. Here are 3 examples:

    • The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered
    • It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon’s palace was discovered in Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls.
    • Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16)

    The more that archaeologists find from the past, the more the Bible is proven accurate historically.

     

    9. What about the variances and errors in copying?

    There are thousands of variants between manuscripts that we have! But is this a big problem? Not really when you consider what is counted as a variant:

    • spelling differences- word missing a letter or has an extra letter
    • nonsense – the scribe made a mistake that is easily seen – “put in a wrong word”
    • words changed with synonyms
    • articles that are or are not missing (the, an, a)
    • word order changed (King Herod vs. Herod the King)

    There are very few variants that change the meaning of the text.

    A couple of the biggest questions are regarding Mark 16:9-10, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:6-8. The question is if these texts belong. But the issue doesn’t matter. There is not anything that these texts teach that is not taught elsewhere in the bible.

    Only about 1% of variants in any way change the meaning of the text, and not one of them affects a common doctrine or belief of Christians!

    Filed Under: Bible, Evidences Tagged With: , , , , ,

    Did the “Church” Give us the Bible?

    July 10, 2012 by Leave a Comment

    “When were all these writings put together? The Catholic Church put all of them in one book between the years 350 and 405.” (A Catechism for Adults, p. 10).

    Catholics contend that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible and so they can exalt and defend their traditions that are contrary to the Bible. But is this true? Are we indebted to the Catholic Church for giving us the Bible?

    The answer to this question is NO. I give three evidences for this:

    1. The underlying principle that determined canonicity of the books is the same principle that stood under the verbal preaching of the apostles while Christianity was in its earliest stages: inspiration. Before any of the books were written, there was inspired oral teaching that came from God. Then this inspired teaching was written down. In reality, the inspired teachings and writings are what gave birth to the church, not the other way around! The church began in Acts 2 because of the Apostles’ inspired teaching. The 4th century councils did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus. They recognized what had already been accepted as inspired writings from God that were to be consider the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The books are NOT inspired because the Catholic Church gave them to us, but because God gave them to us. For the Catholic Church to make this claim is nothing short of pride and when they do it they are putting themselves in the place of God, which is idolatry.
    2. The Catholic Church was not yet in existence when the writers penned the scriptures. They claim that everyone who wrote the scriptures was Catholic. “”All the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics” (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 14). But they are attempting to rewrite history in saying this! I firmly deny that the writers of the New Testament were members of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church or its organization and practices? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order?
    3. The Catholic Churches traditions and doctrines contradict the Bible or are absent from its pages, which means that they are not doing all things in the name of Christ (col 3:17). Why is there not a mention purgatory, indulgences, confession to priests prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church not mentioned in the New Testament? If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, “A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher…He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says “he must be married.” Why does the Bible condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6). Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9). Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2). Why does it condemn the making, bowing down to, and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5). Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9). Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).

    As I have already stated, the only way to accept the idea that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible is to ignore history. A church that was not present yet can not give anyone anything. This would be like me saying that I gave you a gift before I was born. Manufactured lists of Apostolic Succession cannot prove anything. Many other “churches” have the same lists, all of which are not Biblical. I stand on the truth that the Bible when it was written was inspired of God before any councils, and that it tells us everything that we need to know to be faithful to God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

     

    Sources:

    A Catechism For Adults, William J. Conan, ACTA Publications, Chicago, Illinois, 1959.

    The Bible is a Catholic Book, Knights of Columbus Religious Information Bureau, St. Louis, 1948.

    Filed Under: Bible, Catholic Church, Evidences Tagged With: , , , , , ,

    Earliest Manuscripts of the New Testament Discovered?

    July 3, 2012 by Leave a Comment

    I found this article on the website of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts website. This site is a great resource if you are interested in learning more about manuscript evidence for the Bible.

    Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?

    10 February 2012

    Daniel B. Wallace

    On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000 people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first.These fragments will be published in about a year.

    These manuscripts now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts (all fragmentary, more or less) from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, about 33% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

    It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

    Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. 200–250 CE). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

    How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings.The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.

    These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the original followers of Jesus! Not only this, but this manuscript would have been written before the New Testament was completed.

    Filed Under: Bible, Evidences Tagged With: , , , , , ,